How significant was Socrates?

[spockrates]

“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!

Yes, the divine inscription on the wall of the temple at Delphi came up from time to time in his dialogs. As you said, the idea was not his own. But perhaps there is another worthy idea for which we may give him credit. His method has value to me, personally.

 

[inocente]

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.

The number of slaves 150 years ago was considerably more than 500 years ago, due to the actions of people from Christian countries. The same societies which built the Atlantic slave trade were those which brought it to an end.

We can’t just ignore the build-up and only consider only the demise when exactly the same peoples did both. Don’t you think?

 

[inocente]

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!

charlemagne: So the very same Christian countries which made slavery legal later changed their minds. Obviously for 1850 years they completely mistook what the bible says, then 150 years ago finally got it right. If I’d been there in those 1850 years I wouldn’t have made that mistake though, no sirree.

inocente:

charlmagne: Yes, well OK the Enlightenment happened, and the industrial revolution too, but they had nothing to do with it, purely by coincidence after 1850 years Christians finally read the bible the right way, my way.

inocente: :coffeeread:

 

[inocente]

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

Methinks I explained it poorly, I was wandering off in the opposite direction.

I was cogitating on why our culture has such a strong taboo on cannibalism but no taboo at all on eating factory farmed animals, or of cutting down rain forests to grow more animals to slaughter, or of raping the Earth and paving it over.

So why is nothing sacred in our culture except ourselves, and sometimes not even ourselves?

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

Because in a situation where we are between a rock and a hard place, playing it cool and considering all the options is a good strategy.

*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.*

I’m not so sure about it as a maxim. For instance in evolution beneficial adaptations win out in the end, but that process can be mighty cruel to individuals. So since individuals don’t walk the Earth for more than a short time while society lasts much longer, “Good is what is everlasting” might be too utilitarian. What do you think?

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

Not sure that follows. People have never agreed on the ultimate answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Everyone has a different view, so yes that matters since the chances are our answer is wrong.

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?

You would need to define what you mean by everlasting benefit and detriment. To get the party started, turns out the word hate occurs 127 times in the bible (love wins this contest with 686).

 

[spockrates]

Methinks I explained it poorly, I was wandering off in the opposite direction.

I was cogitating on why our culture has such a strong taboo on cannibalism but no taboo at all on eating factory farmed animals, or of cutting down rain forests to grow more animals to slaughter, or of raping the Earth and paving it over.

So why is nothing sacred in our culture except ourselves, and sometimes not even ourselves?

http://www.treehuggersofamerica.org/images/tree_hugger.jpg

Well, one person’s sacred is another peron’s spitoon! There are the rare few who find none sacred. There are pagans and even Christians who find every living thing–animal and vegetable–sacred. Seems the same was true in Paul’s day, as he mentions not judging those who are vegetarians. But since you ask why we find ourselves forbidden food but our livestock fair game, perhaps the idea originated here?

26 Then God said, o“Let us make man8 in our image, pafter our likeness. And qlet them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
rmale and female he created them.

(Genesis 1)

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And tas I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

(Genesis 9:3)

27 “But if in spite of this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, 28 then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. 29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my soul will abhor you. 31 And I will lay your cities waste and will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing aromas. 32 And I myself will devastate the land, so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled at it. 33 And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you, and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.

(Leviticus 26)

It seems we are made in the image of God Himselves, the living creatures of the earth are for our food, and resorting to cannibalism is the result of God’s judgment or perhaps a symptom of those who rebell against him to the point where they lose all understanding of right and wrong.

Because in a situation where we are between a rock and a hard place, playing it cool and considering all the options is a good strategy.

My apologies. I think I’m being clear as mud! Let me follow Socrates’ example by using one:

My son is in highschool. He misses class Friday and learns there will be a quiz on what was covered in class that day. He sends a text to a friend: “What do I need to know for Monday’s quiz?” His friend’s text in response: “KCAC”. My son’s text back: “???” His friend’s next text: “Keep calm and carry on!”

Has his friend given him the answer he seeks?

I’m not so sure about it as a maxim. For instance in evolution beneficial adaptations win out in the end, but that process can be mighty cruel to individuals. So since individuals don’t walk the Earth for more than a short time while society lasts much longer, “Good is what is everlasting” might be too utilitarian. What do you think?

I think your doubt is understandable if one thinks merely in terms of the material. But since the soul survives the body, the concept of what lasts must extend beyond the body. I think you would agree as a Baptist. For I used to be one.

Not sure that follows. People have never agreed on the ultimate answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Everyone has a different view, so yes that matters since the chances are our answer is wrong.

You would need to define what you mean by everlasting benefit and detriment. To get the party started, turns out the word hate occurs 127 times in the bible (love wins this contest with 686).

Everlasting: That which survives forever, without end. One example: Your soul and mine. Another example: God. And another: Your signature (1 Cointhians 13:13).

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, the divine inscription on the wall of the temple at Delphi came up from time to time in his dialogs. As you said, the idea was not his own. But perhaps there is another worthy idea for which we may give him credit. His method has value to me, personally.

I agree. His questioning technique probably led Aristotle to formulate the logical principles of thought, notably the law of (non-)contradiction. It must have made subsequent thinkers far more aware of the need for consistency - which becomes increasingly difficult in a complex explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Another thought by Socrates, close to “Know thyself.”

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

And another:

“To philosophize is to learn how to die:”

 

[inocente]

Well, one person’s sacred is another peron’s spitoon! There are the rare few who find none sacred. There are pagans and even Christians who find every living thing–animal and vegetable–sacred. Seems the same was true in Paul’s day, as he mentions not judging those who are vegetarians. But since you ask why we find ourselves forbidden food but our livestock fair game, perhaps the idea originated here?

Yes, no doubt it’s Gen 1, why look further when the justification for dominating everything that moves and subduing everything that doesn’t is smack there on page one.

And dominate the Hopi we did also, and as victors apparently gave ourselves license to call them tree-huggers .

So what if we dominate everything to extinction and subdue all the fossil fuels, that’s our descendants’ problem, we won’t be around so why should we care?

It seems we are made in the image of God Himselves, the living creatures of the earth are for our food, and resorting to cannibalism is the result of God’s judgment or perhaps a symptom of those who rebell against him to the point where they lose all understanding of right and wrong.

Or, from our descendants’ perspective, “he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation”.

And as the children cross the wastelands, unable to grow crops due to us polluting the soil, they will at least know their parents were not cannibals, so that’s all right then, no harm done.

As a species many of us have a taste for dominating and subduing but don’t have a taste for human flesh, so it’s a bit redundant to use a bronze age text to justify what comes naturally. Yet that doesn’t seem to move us beyond Adam. Is there a rational moral case for cannibalizing everything else while not cannibalizing ourselves?

*My apologies. I think I’m being clear as mud! Let me follow Socrates’ example by using one:

My son is in highschool. He misses class Friday and learns there will be a quiz on what was covered in class that day. He sends a text to a friend: “What do I need to know for Monday’s quiz?” His friend’s text in response: “KCAC”. My son’s text back: “???” His friend’s next text: “Keep calm and carry on!”

Has his friend given him the answer he seeks?*

Then your son missed an excellent lesson . Learning a strategy, how to think, can be much more useful than learning facts. Another instance: TAMTF*

Does Socrates say anything about learning how to think v. being good at quizzing?

• TAMTF - teach a man to fish.

I think your doubt is understandable if one thinks merely in terms of the material. But since the soul survives the body, the concept of what lasts must extend beyond the body. I think you would agree as a Baptist. For I used to be one.

Ah, that explains your good sense, fine jawline and manly cologne. But no, not really. Are cold showers good for the soul, or merely rather pleasurable to masochistic puritan souls?

Everlasting: That which survives forever, without end. One example: Your soul and mine. Another example: God. And another: Your signature (1 Cointhians 13:13).

Indeed. So now could you define what you mean by everlasting benefit and detriment?

 

[spockrates]

Another thought by Socrates, close to “Know thyself.”

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

And another:

“To philosophize is to learn how to die:”

Good quotes!



Socrates said the first at his trial. Is the second a quote if his too, or of someone else? I like this quote of Socrates, too:

Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins with wonder.

(Theaeteus)

I’ve been quoting him from Theaeteus often in this discussion. Perhaps I should reread it.

 

[spockrates]

Yes, no doubt it’s Gen 1, why look further when the justification for dominating everything that moves and subduing everything that doesn’t is smack there on page one.

And dominate the Hopi we did also, and as victors apparently gave ourselves license to call them tree-huggers .

So what if we dominate everything to extinction and subdue all the fossil fuels, that’s our descendants’ problem, we won’t be around so why should we care?

I’m glad you’ve chosen to play the roll of my midwife. Perhaps I will give birth to a beautiful baby truth I’ve never known! At the very least, my labor pains will end in a stillborn lie that I will mournfully–though later with gratitude–allow you to remove from my grasp. Either way, I shall be the better man for it.

The question I’d ask myself in response to your justified cynicism is this: Does one who loves God–or as some Hopi might call Him or Her, The Great Spirit–with all his soul, strength and mind by thinking we should “dominate everything to extinction”? The answer one gives shows the extent to which the answerer genuinely loves God. And the second question is like it–why has The Great Spirit made all this and given it to me and other Christians and the Hopi and the rest of our species? And I’m reminded (whether the idea is one that comes from The Great Spirit or from some memory of some other teacher, I do not know) of something King David wrote:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the Lord are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is pure,
enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
and all of them are righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the honeycomb.
11 By them your servant is warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
12 But who can discern their own errors?
Forgive my hidden faults.
13 Keep your servant also from willful sins;
may they not rule over me.
Then I will be blameless,
innocent of great transgression.
14 May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight,
Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.

(Psalm 19)

And these words were sung by a man who was after The Great Spirit’s own heart who also took Genesis to heart. Psalm after psalm the sweet melody repeats. God made the heavens, the earth, the wildlife and vegetation to give our lives remarkable beauty to experience with all our senses. To destroy it is to take a knife to Davinci’s Mona Lisa or a sledge hammer to Michelangelo’s statue of David; it is to spit in Jesus’ face, put a sack over his head and beat him senseless in the head with a club, while one grits his teeth and mocks him. “Create this, god man! Who’s going to save you from destruction, now?”

So whether one eats the cattle, or vows to never eat and keeps him as a pet, he cares for it while it lives under his care. For it is God’s gift and an expression of his creative beauty, which inspires me to create something beautiful, as far as The Great Spirit will enable me, in word or deed, to give to others so that they may experience the same love of God. Destroy? God forbid! Eat sometimes and when appropriate? I do, but I respect those who do not. Appreciate the beauty of life, the universe and everything? How can I offend God and you and the living beings created by doing anything less? I will not.

And if loving us by creating such beauty for us is the purpose of The Great Spirit’s life, the universe and everything, then my purpose is clear.

 

[spockrates]

Or, from our descendants’ perspective, “he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation”.

I think it wise to carefully consider the historical context before drawing a conclusion about the actual meaning of the text you quoted:

1. 
   *]A foreign army from the north was invading
   *]God’s spokesperson was warning them not to resist the army but to surrender and allow it to pass through and go to war against Egypt
   *]He said that if they sided with Egypt and resisted, the invading army would sack their cities, take them prisoner, and relocate them hundreds of miles to the north
   *]There they, their children and their children’s children would stay in exile before they would be allowed to return
   *]The Jewish people did not heed the warning
   *]They allied themselves with Egypt and declared war against the invaders
   *]As a result, things went down as God predicted
   *]The sins of the fathers’ going to war against God’s better judgment resulted in their children and grand children suffering the consequences
   
   The lesson, I’d say is that our personal sins don’t just have consequences for us. They extend through space and time effecting not only those dear to us, but also generations to come. I think you might agree, as hunting to extinction and wasting resources and generating massive amounts of pollution is likely to visit the results of our sins on our children and our children’s children and on generations to come.
   

   And as the children cross the wastelands, unable to grow crops due to us polluting the soil, they will at least know their parents were not cannibals, so that’s all right then, no harm done.

   Yet not one of the many thousands wandering the desert until an entire generation grew old and died resorted to canablism. Perhaps where God guides, he provides. In fact, they were told to leave the desert, but refused to do so, yet God still met their needs.
   

   As a species many of us have a taste for dominating and subduing but don’t have a taste for human flesh, so it’s a bit redundant to use a bronze age text to justify what comes naturally. Yet that doesn’t seem to move us beyond Adam. Is there a rational moral case for cannibalizing everything else while not cannibalizing ourselves?

   The case is love.
   

   Then your son missed an excellent lesson . Learning a strategy, how to think, can be much more useful than learning facts. Another instance: TAMTF*

   Does Socrates say anything about learning how to think v. being good at quizzing?

   • TAMTF - teach a man to fish.

   But don’t overlook the Boy Scouts’ motto: Always be prepared.
   
   
   
   Are you saying my son does not need to study and prepare for any exam? All he needs to do is keep calm and carry on in his ignorance of the subject matter?
   

   Ah, that explains your good sense, fine jawline and manly cologne. But no, not really. Are cold showers good for the soul, or merely rather pleasurable to masochistic puritan souls?

   Indeed. So now could you define what you mean by everlasting benefit and detriment?

   What you smell is Right Guard, which I use to mask my stench; it’s hard to notice my facial features when I take off my cap and one gets a load of my receding hairline; and my wife and sons would likely not use the adjective good–or even common–to describe my sense! But I appreciate the attempt at giving me a compliment.
   
   
   
   Everlasting benefit is to live forever in the presence of the One who benefits us. Everlasting detriment is to exist forever apart from the benefit of such a presence. I can think of no better goal that is achieved now, but experienced after death. But perhaps you have something better in mind?
   
   

 

[spockrates]

I agree. His questioning technique probably led Aristotle to formulate the logical principles of thought, notably the law of (non-)contradiction. It must have made subsequent thinkers far more aware of the need for consistency - which becomes increasingly difficult in a complex explanation.

Agreed, but Plato’s pupil Aristotle had a serious criticism of the wisdom of Socrates. It’s an objection repeated by such esteemed critics as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Aquinas. I think we should at least briefly consider what they had to say before we make up our minds about Socrates. Don’t you?

 

[inocente]

I’m glad you’ve chosen to play the roll of my midwife. Perhaps I will give birth to a beautiful baby truth I’ve never known! At the very least, my labor pains will end in a stillborn lie that I will mournfully–though later with gratitude–allow you to remove from my grasp. Either way, I shall be the better man for it.

The question I’d ask myself in response to your justified cynicism is this: Does one who loves God–or as some Hopi might call Him or Her, The Great Spirit–with all his soul, strength and mind by thinking we should “dominate everything to extinction”? The answer one gives shows the extent to which the answerer genuinely loves God. And the second question is like it–why has The Great Spirit made all this and given it to me and other Christians and the Hopi and the rest of our species? And I’m reminded (whether the idea is one that comes from The Great Spirit or from some memory of some other teacher, I do not know) of something King David wrote:

[snip to make post fit]
(Psalm 19)

And these words were sung by a man who was after The Great Spirit’s own heart who also took Genesis to heart. Psalm after psalm the sweet melody repeats. God made the heavens, the earth, the wildlife and vegetation to give our lives remarkable beauty to experience with all our senses. To destroy it is to take a knife to Davinci’s Mona Lisa or a sledge hammer to Michelangelo’s statue of David; it is to spit in Jesus’ face, put a sack over his head and beat him senseless in the head with a club, while one grits his teeth and mocks him. “Create this, god man! Who’s going to save you from destruction, now?”

So whether one eats the cattle, or vows to never eat and keeps him as a pet, he cares for it while it lives under his care. For it is God’s gift and an expression of his creative beauty, which inspires me to create something beautiful, as far as The Great Spirit will enable me, in word or deed, to give to others so that they may experience the same love of God. Destroy? God forbid! Eat sometimes and when appropriate? I do, but I respect those who do not. Appreciate the beauty of life, the universe and everything? How can I offend God and you and the living beings created by doing anything less? I will not.

And if loving us by creating such beauty for us is the purpose of The Great Spirit’s life, the universe and everything, then my purpose is clear.

A good thought, a fine thought, your meaning shines through. Yet draw close and this tree-hugging cynic (¿es posible?) will tell a story, a story which questions whether it is reasonable to believe that God made a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, to give to us alone.

There is an alien species far more intelligent than us, to whom dominating and subduing is also most appealing. It is justified by their holy books just as it is in ours.

And it comes to pass that they visit us and find us mere animals beside them, and so dominate and subdue us just as they should according to their scripture.

Us humans protest that the heavens do not declare the glory of the alien god, the god who grants that the aliens should dominate us, the heavens declare the glory of our god, who granted us the franchise on dominating thank you very much.

But of course there is only one God, and that God never changes and so can’t want two different things, so it seems that what we’re dealing with here is not what God wants but a dispute about what it is thought he wants.

This is a most important discrepancy, either we or the aliens must be wrong. There is a flurry of theologians working long into the nights asking who is right about God, who can it be?

Well, to cut a long story short , along come the Hopi who say enough of this dominating and subduing already you guys, you’re both wrong, God made everything and so everything is sacred, to each according to their needs.

So we and the aliens agree the Hopi are namby-pamby wet liberal trash, and we dominate the Hopi into the middle of next week, then the aliens dominate us into the middle of the following week.

Everything is sacred indeed, what nonsense, next they’ll be telling us the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

There would be no malls or many other things if our holy books said all is sacred, for who would pave over the world for mass producing sports shoes? But I can’t help thinking perhaps the Hopi are closer to what a rational God wants for his creation. The moral being that the things we’re liable / to read in the bible / It ain’t necessarily so / So we should also use our noggins.

Incidentally, now we try to live with wolves rather than dominate them, turns out they howl to let each other know how much others mean to them. Fluffy or what?

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23767354

Incidentally II, as you like movies, ever see Koyaanisqatsi? The title is a Hopi word meaning life out of balance, the movie a tone poem with music by Philip Glass, directed by Godfrey Reggio, who was previously a monk in the Congregation of Christian Brothers. It just wordlessly gets us to look back at ourselves (circa 1980), for the unexamined life is not worth living. One of the most memorable movies ever. Available on DVD at a store near you.

youtube.com/watch?v=1jM2WA2WbDc
youtube.com/watch?v=GO1nYk8ErUc

 

[spockrates]

A good thought, a fine thought, your meaning shines through. Yet draw close and this tree-hugging cynic (¿es posible?) will tell a story, a story which questions whether it is reasonable to believe that God made a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, to give to us alone.

There is an alien species far more intelligent than us, to whom dominating and subduing is also most appealing. It is justified by their holy books just as it is in ours.

And it comes to pass that they visit us and find us mere animals beside them, and so dominate and subdue us just as they should according to their scripture.

Us humans protest that the heavens do not declare the glory of the alien god, the god who grants that the aliens should dominate us, the heavens declare the glory of our god, who granted us the franchise on dominating thank you very much.

But of course there is only one God, and that God never changes and so can’t want two different things, so it seems that what we’re dealing with here is not what God wants but a dispute about what it is thought he wants.

This is a most important discrepancy, either we or the aliens must be wrong. There is a flurry of theologians working long into the nights asking who is right about God, who can it be?

http://www.shaunthesheep.be/shaunthesheep/foto/500/alien.jpg

Since the story is one of science fiction, I’d say we’re both at liberty to make it up as we go along. Turns out the alien atheists are the one’s advocating the rounding up of all the inferior inhabitants on the planet the inhabitants call Earth.

The theist aliens put a hold on their plans, while they consider the spiritual state of this new spicies. They obtain a digital copy of one of the religious texts of the species and translate it in short order. To their surprise, the text is extremely similar to their own–the names of people and places and such have changed, but the moral teachings are the same. They read one and are convinced of its source:

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

(John 10:16)

Their own God-alien of their own religion said the same! This God-man was speaking of the aliens, who are the “other sheep” and the aliens’ God-alien was speaking of the inhabitants of Earth when he said he must gather the other herd animals. Alien and Earth species are all the herd animals of the same God. The uncanny similarities of the religious texts of each is firm evidence of this. Since both species have the same shepherd, the aliens must treat these other herd animals as equals in the eyes of their God, and in their own eyes. They must show the same respect and care for them that they show for one another.

Well, to cut a long story short , along come the Hopi who say enough of this dominating and subduing already you guys, you’re both wrong, God made everything and so everything is sacred, to each according to their needs.

So we and the aliens agree the Hopi are namby-pamby wet liberal trash, and we dominate the Hopi into the middle of next week, then the aliens dominate us into the middle of the following week.

Everything is sacred indeed, what nonsense, next they’ll be telling us the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

There would be no malls or many other things if our holy books said all is sacred, for who would pave over the world for mass producing sports shoes? But I can’t help thinking perhaps the Hopi are closer to what a rational God wants for his creation. The moral being that the things we’re liable / to read in the bible / It ain’t necessarily so / So we should also use our noggins.

Incidentally, now we try to live with wolves rather than dominate them, turns out they howl to let each other know how much others mean to them. Fluffy or what?

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23767354

Incidentally II, as you like movies, ever see Koyaanisqatsi? The title is a Hopi word meaning life out of balance, the movie a tone poem with music by Philip Glass, directed by Godfrey Reggio, who was previously a monk in the Congregation of Christian Brothers. It just wordlessly gets us to look back at ourselves (circa 1980), for the unexamined life is not worth living. One of the most memorable movies ever. Available on DVD at a store near you.

youtube.com/watch?v=1jM2WA2WbDc
youtube.com/watch?v=GO1nYk8ErUc

Have not seen the flick, but I’ll check out Netflix to see if I can find it.

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed, but Plato’s pupil Aristotle had a serious criticism of the wisdom of Socrates. It’s an objection repeated by such esteemed critics as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Aquinas. I think we should at least briefly consider what they had to say before we make up our minds about Socrates. Don’t you?

Which criticism do you have in mind? His unworldliness?

 

[spockrates]

Which criticism do you have in mind? His unworldliness?

It’s one already mentioned back in post 58 and brought up a few times since then, but never seriously considered and addressed:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11061588&postcount=58

---

The premise was held by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologica:

This was the opinion of Socrates, who said “every virtue is a kind of prudence,” as stated in Ethic. vi, 13. Hence he maintained that as long as man is in possession of knowledge, he cannot sin; and that every one who sins, does so through ignorance.

summatheologica.info/summa/qu…s/?q=177&a=890

It was an opinion of Socrates’ beliefs also held by Fredrick Neitzsche in his The Birth of Tragedy:

Consider the consequences of the Socratic maxim: “Virtue is knowledge; a man sins only from ignorance; he who is virtuous is happy.”

And also by Soren Kierkegaard in his Sickness Unto Death.

It seems these three got the idea from Plato’s pupil Aristotle who, in his Ethics has a fictional dialog with Socrates where Socrates argues that virtue is a kind if cognition, while Aristotle disagrees and argues that virtue is instead volition. (I say fictional because I do not believe Aristotle ever spoke with Socrates and was instead using the dialog to argue against the ideas proposed by Plato’s other students. For I’ve heard there was a great deal of debate between them.)

Now Socrates once said, “A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense, so we ought to try to understand him.” And I think we should not discount the teachings of these three wise men, or of their revered father, Aristotle. Yet, I don’t think we should blindly take their word for it, either. We should carefully consider what they, and more importantly Socrates had to say. Only then should we come to conclusion.

---

Let’s imagine Socrates on trial yet again–this time not for his life but for his legacy. The charge against him: Propigating the lie that it is impossible for a wise man to sin. You and I will play the part of his defense lawyers, and Aristotle the prosecuting atourney, who calls the three witnesses against our client–Aquinas, Neitzsche and Kierkegaard. Are you up for the challenge?

 

[tonyrey]

http://www.thefoxgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Socrates-death.jpg

It’s one already mentioned back in post 58 and brought up a few times since then, but never seriously considered and addressed:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11061588&postcount=58

---

The premise was held by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologica:

This was the opinion of Socrates, who said “every virtue is a kind of prudence,” as stated in Ethic. vi, 13. Hence he maintained that as long as man is in possession of knowledge, he cannot sin; and that every one who sins, does so through ignorance.

summatheologica.info/summa/qu…s/?q=177&a=890

It was an opinion of Socrates’ beliefs also held by Fredrick Neitzsche in his The Birth of Tragedy:

Consider the consequences of the Socratic maxim: “Virtue is knowledge; a man sins only from ignorance; he who is virtuous is happy.”

And also by Soren Kierkegaard in his Sickness Unto Death.

It seems these three got the idea from Plato’s pupil Aristotle who, in his Ethics has a fictional dialog with Socrates where Socrates argues that virtue is a kind if cognition, while Aristotle disagrees and argues that virtue is instead volition. (I say fictional because I do not believe Aristotle ever spoke with Socrates and was instead using the dialog to argue against the ideas proposed by Plato’s other students. For I’ve heard there was a great deal of debate between them.)

Now Socrates once said, “A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense, so we ought to try to understand him.” And I think we should not discount the teachings of these three wise men, or of their revered father, Aristotle. Yet, I don’t think we should blindly take their word for it, either. We should carefully consider what they, and more importantly Socrates had to say. Only then should we come to conclusion.

---

Let’s imagine Socrates on trial yet again–this time not for his life but for his legacy. The charge against him: Propigating the lie that it is impossible for a wise man to sin. You and I will play the part of his defense lawyers, and Aristotle the prosecuting atourney, who calls the three witnesses against our client–Aquinas, Neitzsche and Kierkegaard. Are you up for the challenge?

You need to justify the implication that Socrates believed a wise man is infallible and impeccable!

 

[spockrates]

You need to justify the implication that Socrates believed a wise man is infallible and impeccable!

Yes, that is one strategy we might adopt to defend our client: Put doubt in the minds of the jury that Socrates ever taught such nonsense. Another strategy is to take the other route we hope to arrive at aquittal: Demonstrate to the jurors that it actually is impossible for a wise man to sin. Come now. Let us plan our defense before the trial begins. What option would you like to consider first? Socrates never said a wise man is perfect? Or Socrates was onto something when he said perfection is the mark if one truly wise?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, that is one strategy we might adopt to defend our client: Put doubt in the minds of the jury that Socrates ever taught such nonsense. Another strategy is to take the other route we hope to arrive at aquittal: Demonstrate to the jurors that it actually is impossible for a wise man to sin. Come now. Let us plan our defense before the trial begins. What option would you like to consider first? Socrates never said a wise man is perfect? Or Socrates was onto something when he said perfection is the mark if one truly wise?

There is no evidence that Socrates said a wise man is wise in every respect. I’m sure he didn’t believe a human being can be omniscient or infallible! Those who are truly wise are aware of their limitations - and ignorance.

 

[spockrates]

There is no evidence that Socrates said a wise man is wise in every respect. I’m sure he didn’t believe a human being can be omniscient or infallible! Those who are truly wise are aware of their limitations - and ignorance.

Yes, we might begin our defense by making this our opening statement to the jury. But the prosecutor’s opening statement might very well be that the crime for which Socrates should be found guilty is spreading the lie that a wise man is perfectly sinless, and he is actually not charged with saying man is omniscient.

So should we stake our defense on the argument that Socrates never said this? Or should we admit he said this, but make the argument that it is no lie (and so not a crime) and show the jurors sinless perfectionism is in fact possible for one who is truly wise?