/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15235081]

This idiot was about to be free but talked himself back into getting executed. Wtf?

[Anonymous No.15235088]

>>15235081
did you read the apology?

[Anonymous No.15235099]

>>15235088
Yes, dying by unjust laws just because you lived your entire life in an unjust city is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15235165]

He was old as fuck, it was a last moment of glory for him, a final exposition of his method not to a single individual or group but to the whole city of Athens.
The Crito states his reasons well. The alternatives were essentially begging for his life or running away which would be an unphilosophic clinging to life and a shameful thing to do when he was so close to death naturally.

[Anonymous No.15235265]

>>15235081
Death is not a bad thing

[Anonymous No.15235271]

>>15235165
This, this is the emblematic moment of his life. The moment that immortalized him.

[Anonymous No.15235287]

I had to die so Plato could live.

[Anonymous No.15235298]

>>15235081
>This idiot was about to be free but talked himself back into getting executed. Wtf?
Go reread the entirety of the Western canon and meditate under a tree, then have sex with enough attractive partners that you sufficiently realize the banality of the flesh (or just read Schoppy..), REread (and actually understand) Nietzsche, and get back to us.

[Anonymous No.15235349]

>>15235298
>banality of the flesh
>understand Nietzsche
But anon, Nietzsche isn't against the flesh, the banality of the flesh is a Christian concept to undermine nature. What do you mean by understand Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.15235354]

>>15235081
I thought that was Saddam for a minute.

[Anonymous No.15235364]

>>15235081
Real Socrates was probably some old pedo degenerate and who begged for forgiveness but was rekt by athenian state anyway, Plato slightly embellished the story.

[Anonymous No.15235412]

I read the Apology yesterday. Socrates explains in detail why he chose to give the soliloquy rather than bringing up his family and begging for forgiveness, which was quite based. However, I thought some of Socrates' arguments were so bafflingly ridiculous and repugnant to the intellect that it makes me hesitant to continue on with Plato. For example:
>SOCRATES: Is there anyone who would rather be injured than benefitted by his d companions? Answer, my good man; you are obliged by the law to answer. Does anyone like to be injured?
>MELETUS: Certainly not.
>SOCRATES: Well, then, are you prosecuting me for corrupting the young and mak- ing them worse, voluntarily or involuntarily?
>MELETUS: For doing it voluntarily.
>SOCRATES: What, Meletus? Do you mean to say that you, who are so much younger than I, are yet so much wiser than I that you know that bad citizens always do evil, and that good citizens do good, to those with whom they come in contact, while I am so extraordi- e narily ignorant as not to know that, if I make any of my companions evil, he will probably injure me in some way? And you allege that I do this voluntarily? You will not make me believe that, nor anyone else either, I should think. Either I do not corrupt the young at all or, if I do, I do so involuntarily, so that you are lying in either case.

He is literally saying he could not have corrupted the town's youth voluntarily because that would lead to them being evil and if they're evil they can harm him, so it would be against self-interest. This is so blatantly ridiculous that if I was a juror there I would also think Socrates is a sophist. I just can't believe this is taken from the work of 'the greatest philosopher' in western history. Euthyphro was retarded and Apology was OK (aside from this section) but not very insightful. I really, really hope it gets better from here.

[Anonymous No.15235419]

>>15235088
Sorry.

>>15235099
It is rare in history to have been as alone in the world as Athens.

[Anonymous No.15235436]

>>15235165
He died by choice. Meaning he effectively comitted suicide. Just because he became a "martyr" doesn't mean he didn't choose to die an early death. He could have avoided it.
Did he not frown upon suicide? Why would he think his path to hades would be swift if he chose to die before the time the gods set for him?
To live as a mortal you must actively avoid death. Socrates did not avoid death this time. There was no excuse for giving up that early.

[Anonymous No.15235453]

What other philosophers have chosen noble death in suicide rather than concede the integrity of their philosophy? Ayn Rand for example believed that medical warnings against tobacco were collectivist propaganda and refused to stop smoking, resulting in her death by heart disease. Truly she ranks alongside Socrates in philosophic integrity.

[Anonymous No.15235456]

>>15235453
Mishima, perhaps?

[Anonymous No.15235476]

>>15235453
Neitzche (far right) refused to sacrifice his will to power on the altar of Christian slave morality and instead frequented prostitutes whereby he contracted syphilis. The disease did not kill him, but neither did it make him stronger, instead driving him to insanity, and he died of stroke after being administered mercury as a primitive treatment for his nervous illness.

[Anonymous No.15235481]

>>15235349
Nietzsche is RE the fear of death which is what OP is talking about you plebian scum

Schoppy is pinkpill against anyone who thinks companionship is a reason that Soc shouldn'ta drank the hemlock

read a book

[Anonymous No.15235493]

>>15235412
If you lead other people to do harmful, selfish acts it may very well end up harming you in the end. He has a good point. Like the Jewish fable of the Golem.

[Anonymous No.15235495]

>>15235412
>I read the Apology yesterday
>Socrates explains in detail
>Socrates

[Anonymous No.15235502]

>>15235495
He means Socrates characterization in the dialogue probably. Yes, the thing was actually written by Plato.

[Anonymous No.15235511]

>>15235495
>>15235502
The character's name is Socrates, this is hypercorrection. If you try saying "Plato says..." in any decent discussion about the dialogues you'd also get your ass handed to you.

[Anonymous No.15235524]

>>15235493
That isn't the point. He was using it as a defence to say he couldn't have corrupted the youth.
>You see, I could not have committed the murder, because her family are Irish gypsies, and they have a reputation for being violent and would retaliate by killing me, so it would go against my self interest to kill her, therefore I am innocent. It's just logic bro!

[Anonymous No.15235536]

>>15235524
>>15235412
He's using the defence to say the whole premise is idiotic
>you are lying in either case

[Anonymous No.15235545]

>>15235536
Right, but it's one of the most retarded defences I've heard in my entire life. I wouldn't care if it was in some random book that I'm reading, but people have told me Plato is a great philosopher so I hold him to a higher standard.

[Anonymous No.15235553]

>>15235524
This is the defense

>you claim I corrupted the youth and made them immoral and impious
>immoral and impious people do bad to all around them
>if I had intentionally done this it would have only been to my detriment
>therefore I could not have willingly corrupted them

Not hard to follow.

[Anonymous No.15235558]

>>15235553
What makes you think I didn't understand the argument you absolute cum-gargling faggot? The argument is clear as day, it's just unbelievably stupid.

[Anonymous No.15235559]

>>15235436
Just read the Phaedo and Crito you nigger this is a main theme of them. He didn't die by choice, the Athenian courts brought the charges against him and he chose not to debase himself like plaintiffs then and even today do in court in order to get a lenient sentence.

[Anonymous No.15235584]

>>15235558
No, it's not. Who would intentionally make others evil and immoral? Even actual evil people don't believe they are doing evil.

[Anonymous No.15235593]

>>15235584
If they don't believe it how are they actually evil people and not simply ignorant like Socrates posits.

[Anonymous No.15235596]

>>15235593
That is his entire point. In another dialogue, he even says no man intentionally does evil because even the evil just simply aren't aware of what is right.

[Anonymous No.15235600]

>>15235593
The crux of the matter in the part of the Apology was also whether it was intentional or not. If it was not intentional, it would not have been the court's issue as he says.

[Anonymous No.15235602]

>>15235596
I know lad I was fucking with you and your choice of words.

[Anonymous No.15235607]

>>15235453
When the french homosexual philosopher Michel Foucault was warned about AIDS by his friend and colleague Edmund White, he disregarded the illness, considering it was just a hoax to use power and knowledge to exercise yet another form of social control through societal institutions.
He was quoted saying: "Oh that's perfect Edmund: you American puritans, you’re always inventing diseases. And one that singles out blacks, drug users and gays – how perfect!".
On 26 June of 1984, Foucault died of AIDS.

[Anonymous No.15235613]

>>15235607
based AIDS

[Anonymous No.15235615]

>>15235524
You're assuming the Trial was at all about facts. It wasn't. Ancient trials weren't. For fuck's sake anon they're considering exiling or executing him for being a little annoying, and we can safely assume that at least half of the people Socrates is supposed to have interacted with (namely Euthyphro) would've just told him to fuck off the moment he opened his mouth.

Socrates' Trial is purely an exercise of power and ideology. Bow down, and do what we say. Socrates from the get go is having a laugh at them, because the entire premise is comical from the get go. At no point is anyone interested in the factuality of the charges, as there is no factuality, it's a totally subjective and meaningless charge meant to punish Socrates for having the Wrong Opinions.

[Anonymous No.15235617]

He was a proto-Christian. He knew he was going heaven anyway

[Anonymous No.15235618]

>>15235584
>Even actual evil people don't believe they are doing evil.
It might change your whole worldview when you understand that some people know they are doing evil and absolutely celebrate evil. They can even have no rationale for it, like 'i was abused' or 'i must fix the world', they just found out they like to torture and kill and it becomes their great hobby in life.
You think John Wayne Gacy thought he was doing the right thing? Look him up.

[Anonymous No.15235621]

>>15235596
>the evil aren't aware of what is right

[Anonymous No.15235624]

>>15235618
Depends what you mean by "evil." He still did what he did because he believed it was right, or at least that there was a reason for it to occur. When men choose folly it is because they are unaware of what is righteous for the soul.

[Anonymous No.15235654]

>>15235493
Doesn't being executed count as being "harmed in the end"?

[Anonymous No.15235664]

>>15235654
He was executed by people who refused his knowledge, which is just, to remain in ignorance which Plato saw as evil.

[Anonymous No.15235666]

>>15235624
You are definitely overthinking it.
Don't bother trying to get me to dive into a muddy ditch of defining evil and then doubting his motives.
He did not do what he did because he thought it was right, he did it because to trap, torture and murder young men gave him pleasure. He knew that what he was doing was wrong and went to extreme lengths to hide it.
He was bold, entitled, narcissistic, but not insane and in no way confused about whether he was doing right or wrong.
The fact that it was wrong was just added spice.

[Anonymous No.15235673]

>>15235666
I am just repositing Socrates arguments from Phaedo, I believe it was. He said people who do evil and err are wrong but they do it because they do not properly understand what is good for the soul. If they actually had a proper understanding of the soul and justice, they would not do it at all.

[Anonymous No.15235678]

>>15235584
Socrates "corrupted" the boys by buttfucking them. He obviously did so willingly. His "defense" is a desperate games of semantics.

[Anonymous No.15235692]

>>15235666
I just checked and it was Protagoras where he talks about this. Check out that dialogue to get Socrates full views. "No human errs voluntarily."

[Anonymous No.15235716]

>>15235666
If he's doing it for pleasure he's a hedonist who thinks what gives him pleasure is what is just. In Socrates' view this is ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15235733]

>>15235673
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Weakness of the will much?

[Anonymous No.15235734]

>>15235584
I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Socrates was using sophistry to try to divert the issue. When Meletus said that Socrates was willingly making others evil, he OBVIOUSLY, OBVIOUSLY, did not mean that Socrates actually thought that what he was doing was wrong, but that, in doing whatever he did, he was making people impious and evil, according to Meletus' view. So when Meletus says Socrates willingly corrupted people he means that Socrates' actions were done willingly, and these actions corrupted people, whether or not that was the intent. This is what was under dispute: whether Socrates actions, which he willingly undertook, made the young people of the city impious and evil.

Even leaving that aside, there are various probable motivations for corrupting people that don't go against self-interest. Bribery is a form of corruption, a form of 'making someone evil', and yet it doesn't harm self-interest on the part of the briber. There could be (and probably were in the life of the historical Socrates) political motivations for making people doubt their gods and traditions.

If we are to accept Socrates' defence we can NEVER indict anyone for corrupting anyone else -- whether that be through bribery, manipulation, intimidation, etc. -- because, after all, making others do bad things means they become bad and then bad guys be bad to me so that means I didn't make them bad!!!!!

The greatest philosopher in history btw.

[Anonymous No.15235741]

>>15235734
>did not mean that Socrates actually thought that what he was doing was wrong, but that, in doing whatever he did, he was making people impious and evil, according to Meletus' view.

So then it was unintentional and Socrates should go free. Socrates argument hinges on whether it was intentional or unintentional.

[Anonymous No.15235742]

>>15235716
>If he's doing it for pleasure he's a hedonist who thinks what gives him pleasure is what is just.
Wrong. He's just doing it because it feels good. His concept of "justice" doesn't even come into play.

[Anonymous No.15235755]

>>15235742
Which Socrates would say makes him ignorant.

[Anonymous No.15235756]

>>15235741
NO YOU FUCKING RETARD. IT WAS INTENTIONAL. HIS ACTIONS WERE DONE INTENTIONALLY. THESE ACTIONS CORRUPTED PEOPLE ACCORDING TO MELETUS. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SOCRATES THOUGHT THAT MAKING PEOPLE IMPIOUS WAS BAD, IT MATTERS WHETHER IT WAS BAD.

I BRIBE A POLICEMAN. DO I DESERVE JAIL? YES. WHY? I CORRUPTED THEM. DOES IT MATTER IF I THOUGHT I WAS DOING SOMETHING IMMORAL? NO. WHAT MATTERS IS THAT I DID IT.

AGAIN, IF YOU ACCEPT SOCRATES' STUPID DEFENCE YOU CAN NEVER PUT ANYONE IN JAIL FOR CORRUPTION!

[Anonymous No.15235758]

>>15235742
So he's practicing hedonism without a thought to hedonism and with a vague idea that what he's doing is bad. He's still ignorant, he hasn't investigated his actions like a philosopher if he's just raping and killing willy nilly.

[Anonymous No.15235762]

>>15235741
"You can't punish me for killing Mr Smith, your honor. After all, Mr Smith was a business competitor to me, therefore killing him was a good move. I would never intentionally make a bad move!"

[Anonymous No.15235772]

>>15235666
Over the following hours, Gacy gave a rambling confession that ran into the early hours of the following morning. He began by informing Amirante and Stevens he had "been the judge ... jury and executioner of many, many people", and that he now wanted to be the same for himself.[261] He stated most of his victims were buried in his crawl space, and others in the Des Plaines River. Gacy dismissed his victims as "male prostitutes", "hustlers" and "liars" to whom he gave "the rope trick", adding that he occasionally awoke to find "dead, strangled kids" on his floor, with their hands cuffed behind their back.[262]

He literally thought what he was doing was right.

[Anonymous No.15235774]

>>15235762
>>15235756
>argument for the sake of knowledge is the same as bribery and murder
yikes!

go to bed meletus

[Anonymous No.15235776]

>>15235755
>>15235758
He could have all the knowledge in the world and it wouldn't make a difference. Knowledge alone does not cure weakness of the will or compulsive behavior.

[Anonymous No.15235779]

>>15235776
yes it does

[Anonymous No.15235781]

>>15235774
Carnal 'knowledge' (assfucking boys) is not a form of 'knowledge' in the epistemic sense, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15235787]

>>15235776
Knowledge of what is just and good for the soul helps you to lead a good life. That is all Socrates was getting at.

[Anonymous No.15235788]

>>15235779
What piece of information, if learned, will prevent all heroin addicts from craving a fix?

[Anonymous No.15235798]

>>15235788
Could the people who have recovered from heroin addictions have done it without knowledge?

[Anonymous No.15235800]

>>15235756
>>15235762
You know, the use of "corruption" there isn't at all the same as the use of corruption in modern criminal law.

Look at it this way. You promote some philosopher or set of ideas that other people don't like. They react by saying you're corrupting the minds of the youth. You of course think you've done no such thing, but you know that there is no point in meeting an irrational charge with reason, so you instead play around with them by saying: "Why would I do that?"

The thing you're missing out on here is that, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the trial was not fair. It was not a proper criminal law trial, and Socrates was not guilty of any crime. The result was predetermined and the arguments of the other side irrational, so Socrates met them head on and made fun of them.

[Anonymous No.15235806]

>>15235781
nothing wrong with appreciating your bros beauty

[Anonymous No.15235807]

>>15235774
According to Meletus, Socrates' teachings were making the youth doubt their gods and become impious and corrupt. Socrates' defence was: I couldn't have corrupted people intentionally because then they would be bad and turn on me so it would be bad for my self-interest.

This is obviously untrue. There are infinitely many scenarios you can imagine where Socrates corrupts people according to the standards of Athens and yet the youth don't turn on him. But that is irrelevant anyway because the issue under dispute was whether Socrates did corrupt people through his teachings, not whether he thought he was corrupting them.

[Anonymous No.15235811]

>>15235787
John Wayne Gacy already knew full well that raping and killing boys is not 'good for the soul' or part of a healthy lifestyle. Crack addicts already know full well that indulging their addition is not good for them. Such knowledge does not stop them from acting in a destructive manner.

[Anonymous No.15235814]

>>15235265
Amen.
It's certainly freeing from this fucking retarded ass world.

[Anonymous No.15235817]

>>15235807
If he thought he wasn't corrupting them then it would be unintentional and he could go free. That is the crux of the matter.

[Anonymous No.15235824]

>>15235798
Not at issue. Answer the question.

[Anonymous No.15235835]

>>15235081
Freedom is temporary. Virtue is eternal.

[Anonymous No.15235849]

>>15235817
But his argument for that is completely stupid. Again, I can imagine Socrates corrupting people according to the standards of Athens, making them doubt their traditions and gods etc. without them turning on him and harming his self-interest. He was trying to play semantics and conflate the terms 'corruption according to the standards of Athens' with 'abject evil where everyone runs around killing each other and mayhem ensues'. If you can't see the sophistry I don't know what to say to you.

[Anonymous No.15235852]

>>15235807
If Socrates was corrupting them from ignorance then Meletus and the other Athenians who he interacted with on a day to day basis could have stopped him and alleviated his ignorance, thus saving the youth from the supposed corruption. Instead they let him remain in ignorance and shunned his society before bringing him to trial. Thus, the city of Athens is guilty.

If Socrates was corrupting the youth in full knowledge of what he was doing, IE. propagating ignorance, then he'd be harming his soul through these unjust actions which I suppose he'd say would be against his notions of religion and the Gods. This is according to the theory of the soul he goes on to put forward in the Phaedo.

[Anonymous No.15235862]

>>15235852
Is it possible to corrupt someone without them turning on you? Is it possible to give a policeman £100 to overlook a theft without the policeman turning on you? It is possible, so Socrates' argument is fallacious.

[Anonymous No.15235877]

>>15235824
>Not at issue
I disagree, but if you want a "bit of information" just to satisfy your hypothetical I'd say the knowledge that the addict requires rehab and the other typical salves required by an addict.

[Anonymous No.15235884]

>>15235862
Okay just ignore what I posted and repeat yourself I guess.

[Anonymous No.15235892]

>>15235884
Because your post is utterly irrelevant. Socrates' argument:
>I could not have corrupted the kids intentionally
>Why
>Because I know that if I did they would eventually turn on me.
Fallacious. There are heroin addicts who get kids into heroin, thereby corrupting them, without the kids turning on them and killing them. These heroin addicts can't stand up in court and say:
>I couldn't have given the child heroin
>Why
>Because I knew that if I did he would one day turn on me
No wonder they were laughing him out of court and he had to keep saying 'stop laughing guys!!! :('

[Anonymous No.15235903]

>>15235892
Yeah you're kind of right. I wasn't too happy with that passage when I read it myself.

Phaedo and Crito are good though you should keep reading.

[Anonymous No.15235906]

>>15235892
We are dealing with advanced metaphysics here which is more compatible to the force in star wars than drug use. If you turn someone to evil, they will slay you with the same evil. We see this time in again in fiction, history, reality and religion.

[Anonymous No.15235908]

>>15235545
>Right, but it's one of the most retarded defences I've heard in my entire life.
He's using a really typical defense strategy that you still see used in common law countries today. And he's done something from that that's quite interesting, which is to use what otherwise wouldn't be a good argument to say that Meletus is out of his depth, he immediately gets trapped in a contradiction.

Typically in questioning/a deposition you ask fairly general questions first and then move onto specifics, so Socrates first asking about anyone wanting to be injured and THEN getting Meletus caught in a trap about voluntary actions... yes it's a weak argument but it's stronger than Meletus' argument. At this point all Meletus can do is backtrack, but that doesn't work for a sophist.

[Anonymous No.15235923]

>>15235892
>Fallacious. There are heroin addicts who get kids into heroin, thereby corrupting them, without the kids turning on them and killing them. These heroin addicts can't stand up in court and say:
Yes, but the first part is establishing Meletus' view that this is not possible, if you are able you must produce good in your group for your own sake based on what Meletus' says.

[Anonymous No.15236115]

>>15235511
>>15235502
read the file name

[Anonymous No.15236348]

>>15235412
The early dialogues are insignificant and hold very little of the crux of Platonic philosophy compared to the middle and especially late works.

[Anonymous No.15237657]

>>15236115
Homer?

[Anonymous No.15238682]

>>15235456
kek Mishima is the opposite of noble death

[Anonymous No.15238768]

>>15235481
N hated Socrates for much the same reason that he hated Christ though, rather than fighting for his truth he willingly allowed them to kill him. Allowing your enemies to kill you is not what N is about at all.