[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 220x287, Socrates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14326023 No.14326023 [Reply] [Original]

>Socrates, you are a wise fellow. I beg you not become frustrated with my stupidity. For this foolishness may present itself clearly in my question to you. Would not the idea of justice or goodness or any other word be up to the decision of the individual using it?

How would Socrates respond?

>> No.14326029

>>14326023
"Stupid ass nigga why you think i got killed lmao"

>> No.14326035
File: 16 KB, 373x373, Ber-haps.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14326035

>>14326023

>> No.14326046

y u mad tho

>> No.14326202

>>14326023
"Allow me, my esteemed friend, to answer your question with a question: homosayswhat?"

>> No.14326238

>>14326023
Yes, but he must stand by that decision if he means to bring any life to his thoughts and any dignity to himself

>> No.14326351

>>14326023
> [...] Would not the idea of justice or goodness or any other word be up to the decision of the individual using it?
> Your question is not foolish at all, anon, for it points to some defect of mankind.
> What defect is that, Socrates?
> Would you not say that such an idea is only possible insofar as you are able to communicate its use?
> Perhaps.
> I sense apprehension in your answer, anon. Let me rephrase it. Would you say that, to some extent, your use of a word is guided by what you would like to mean?
> Surely it is so, Socrates, else why would I talk?
> Indeed, why would you? But consider this next point. If I were to invent a word this very moment, and said it to you, would you be able to infer its meaning if truly it were the first time you heard of it, and if I were to say it without context?
> That would be unlikely, Socrates.
> Indeed, it would. Consider the following, if this new word were to mean exactly and without any nuance the same thing as another [word], would you not say "why not use that word instead, rather than using this word you have just now invented"?
> I would!
> I have no doubt you would, anon. And alike to this, if I were to use a word for which there is no current variation in meaning, in a completely novel and outrageous way, would you not think it unfit to do so? Such that a completely novel meaning given out of my own momentary volition might warrant a new term?
> Would that not depend on the word itself? For some words seem to have multiple and varied roots, such that if we see it from this and that way, the meaning can differ.
> Indeed, but imagine I use such a word that could vary in meaning, but without any consideration for its history or its roots in language.
> Then that would surely be an offense against language and its use.
> Then, anon, why would I myself decide what goodness or justice mean? Indeed, wouldn't I have to use it in such a way that someone else can understand it, which in turn would mean I cannot stray too far away from some accepted sense which it already has, or make it completely change its meaning from it.
> But don't we have some nuances in the ways we use words? And what is this accepted sense which everyone has? For I can see a semblance of similitude between people's conceptions of these ideas, yet not two will have the same picture of them.
> Is that not the real question, and much more pertinent also than the mere idiosyncrasy you initially brought forth?

>> No.14326391

>>14326023
Literally book 1 of the republic.

>> No.14326560

>>14326351
nice

>> No.14326577

>>14326351
Very nice effort post anon.

>> No.14326641

>>14326351
>Plato omits this exchange with utter ferocity

>> No.14326753

>>14326351
10/10. Great work anon.

>> No.14326953

>>14326023
>I am a reactive idiot who places my good and evil on the pedastol of "truth" out of ressentiment and hatred of the nobles and their instinctual knowledge that I fear is more powerful than my "reason", which is why I had to elevate it to the level of dialectic, and why I was satisfied with merely finding contradictions in my opponents.

>> No.14326977

>>14326351
>wouldn't I have to use it in such a way that someone else can understand it
no

>> No.14327120

>>14326023
>Would not the idea of justice or goodness or any other word be up to the decision of the individual using it?
No