Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
reasonvemotion wrote:As to public opinion, Socrates seemed indifferent to it during his life and, during his final hours, gave a reasoned explanation of the need to avoid dependency on it.
CRITO: Most people will never believe that it was you who refused to leave this place although we did our best to persuade you.
SOCRATES: But, my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what `most people' think? The reasonable people, who have more claim to our consideration, will believe the facts as they are.
CRITO: You can see for yourself, Socrates, that we have to think of popular opinion as well. Your situation right now is enough to show that the capacity of people for causing trouble is no small thing, in fact it has no limits if you once get a bad name with them.
SOCRATES: I just wish that ordinary people had a boundless capacity to do harm, because they might then have a limitless capacity to do good, which would be a marvellous thing. Actually they have neither. They cannot make a man wise or stupid; they just act at random.
...Born of their particular random set of responses to their particular random set of experiences. And lets not forget the importance of sequence.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Your opinion, but is in fact why I see you as lost as to being any kind of real philosopher.
Not you with the 'real' philosopher as well!
My opinion is fact, we have nothing by Socrates other than what Plato says.
Whereas Aristotle gave us Logic, Biology, Physics, Metaphysics, Geology, Scientific Method, etc. That after Descartes revolution he was reassessed still takes nothing away from his achievements.
p.s.
BIll, care to share the humour?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Your opinion, but is in fact why I see you as lost as to being any kind of real philosopher.
Not you with the 'real' philosopher as well! I do not claim to be a philosopher. I am just a man that is trying to make sense of the universe.
My opinion is fact, we have nothing by Socrates other than what Plato says.
Whereas Aristotle gave us Logic, Biology, Physics, Metaphysics, Geology, Scientific Method, etc. That after Descartes revolution he was reassessed still takes nothing away from his achievements.
p.s.
BIll, care to share the humour?
I see that it matters not that most of Socrates words comes from Plato's lips.
Please tell me, what's the difference between someones lips and someones hands?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I do not claim to be a philosopher. I am just a man that is trying to make sense of the universe.
And yet you appear to be able to hold an opinion as to my relationship to being this 'real' philosopher.
Why assume that the universe has any sense at all? Surely its better to make sense of ones life rather than this 'universe'?
I see that it matters not that most of Socrates words comes from Plato's lips.
Please tell me, what's the difference between someones lips and someones hands?
I think you mean someones lips and someone elses hands and the difference I think is interpretation and intent.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I do not claim to be a philosopher. I am just a man that is trying to make sense of the universe.
And yet you appear to be able to hold an opinion as to my relationship to being this 'real' philosopher. What I decide to consider myself, obviously, is a relative matter, of my minds eye, as is my evaluation of anyone's abilities.
Why assume that the universe has any sense at all? Surely its better to make sense of ones life rather than this 'universe'? The universe is ones life, and one's life is the universe.
I see that it matters not that most of Socrates words comes from Plato's lips.
Please tell me, what's the difference between someones lips and someones hands?
I think you mean someones lips and someone elses hands and the difference I think is interpretation and intent. No I meant what I said: What's the difference between someones lips and someones hands? To whom they belong matters not? Well?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:What I decide to consider myself, obviously, is a relative matter, of my minds eye, as is my evaluation of anyone's abilities.
And this evaluation consisted of saying I was lost to be being a real philosopher. I assumed that you knew what one of these was so as to make this comparison. My comment was a at yet another making such an assertion about the existence of this thing. what pray tell is a "real philosopher"?
The universe is ones life, and one's life is the universe.
How solipsistic of you.
No I meant what I said: What's the difference between someones lips and someones hands? To whom they belong matters not? Well?
You jump around a lot with your thoughts as you said what does it matter if most of Socrates words come from Platos lips and I pointed out we have no way of knowing if what Plato said was most of Socrates words and much to think them Platos. Still, the difference is that one are lips and the other are hands.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:What I decide to consider myself, obviously, is a relative matter, of my minds eye, as is my evaluation of anyone's abilities.
And this evaluation consisted of saying I was lost to be being a real philosopher. I assumed that you knew what one of these was so as to make this comparison. My comment was a at yet another making such an assertion about the existence of this thing. what pray tell is a "real philosopher"? I see that a real philosopher, first and foremost understands one of Socrates' most brilliant statements: 'I only know that I know nothing,' and then conducts themselves accordingly. Because there is much more wisdom contained in those few words than at least some of whom I've met here seem to understand. I see that one cannot truly be a philosopher, without conducting oneself as these words illuminate. Which is why I say I'm no philosopher, yet.
The universe is ones life, and one's life is the universe.
How solipsistic of you. I see that you understand it that way because so few words have actually been spoken by me so as to illuminate that which I mean. I see that your labeling is premature, based solely on some preconceived notion, of my meaning that is a mere reflection, of only that, which you have experienced in your life. You don't yet understand how those few words above relate to my meaning. Which is fine, there is no law that says we have to understand one another. Of course I see our exchange, one of futility, at that point.
No I meant what I said: What's the difference between someones lips and someones hands? To whom they belong matters not? Well?
You jump around a lot with your thoughts as you said what does it matter if most of Socrates words come from Platos lips and I pointed out we have no way of knowing if what Plato said was most of Socrates words and much to think them Platos. Still, the difference is that one are lips and the other are hands. No, you just think I do, because as of that time, that you thought so, you were unaware of where I was going, understandable, but again premature.
No, there is no difference, they are both subject to the mind's story, as they merely duplicate what it is the mind tells them to do, it matters not if one tells a story, or one writes it, either one can equally be true or false; an accurate or inaccurate account. The way in which the mind duplicates them matters not. What really matters is ones agenda, which is often hidden in ones mind, and cannot be ascertained merely by noting which method of recounting is employed.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see that a real philosopher, first and foremost understands one of Socrates' most brilliant statements: 'I only know that I know nothing,' and then conducts themselves accordingly. Because there is much more wisdom contained in those few words than at least some of whom I've met here seem to understand. I see that one cannot truly be a philosopher, without conducting oneself as these words illuminate. Which is why I say I'm no philosopher, yet.
Fair enough.
I see that you understand it that way because so few words have actually been spoken by me so as to illuminate that which I mean. I see that your labeling is premature, based solely on some preconceived notion, of my meaning that is a mere reflection, of only that, which you have experienced in your life. You don't yet understand how those few words above relate to my meaning. Which is fine, there is no law that says we have to understand one another. Of course I see our exchange, one of futility, at that point.
Ya got me as I should have stayed with my usual approach when faced with gnomic statements, "What did you mean by that?" Look forward to hearing from you.
No, you just think I do, because as of that time, that you thought so, you were unaware of where I was going, understandable, but again premature.
Fair enough again.
No, there is no difference, they are both subject to the mind's story, as they merely duplicate what it is the mind tells them to do, it matters not if one tells a story, or one writes it, either one can equally be true or false; an accurate or inaccurate account. The way in which the mind duplicates them matters not. What really matters is ones agenda, which is often hidden in ones mind, and cannot be ascertained merely by noting which method of recounting is employed.
I didn't say it was the method, I said we have no voice or type from Socrates, only Platos account. These are not the same lips nor hands. So I don't think your analogy holds. I also think there are differences between the techniques we use to tell a story, as the voice adds timbre, intonation, etc, that the hands find much harder to tell, whereas the hands can talk without being there and over time.
at yet another making such an assertion about the existence of this thing. what pray tell is a "real philosopher"?