Socrates cope

[Anonymous No.15368731]

Socrates argues that the soul is immortal as follow:

The number 2 is even because it has the property evenness, while the number 3 is odd because it has the property oddness. Since even and odd are opposites, a number cannot admit both properties at the same time. An even number that admits the property odd, e.g. by adding one to itself, destroys its evenness and becomes odd.

Similarly, the property of aliveness is the opposite of death, so one cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Since the soul is what brings a body to life, and is thus responsible for the property aliveness, then it cannot admit the opposite property, death, without ceasing to be a soul. Therefore the soul must be immortal.

Even if we accept all the ridiculous premises - that the soul is the cause of life; the argument from opposites; and the Forms in general - this line of reasoning doesn't seem too convincing. For example, why can't the soul lose its property of aliveness in the same way a fire can lose its heat property?

[Anonymous No.15368747]

>>15368731
Yeah, I thought the same thing. The same with his argument of "the broken lyre and the music is still around." Well no, you actually can't make music anymore with a broken instrument and the music that was is gone....

[Anonymous No.15368752]

>>15368747
It's a shame that Cebes and Simmias had the strongest arguments yet they gave in and accepted Socrates' ideas without protest. I'm pretty sure they just didn't want to upset a dying man.

[Anonymous No.15368758]

>>15368731
>>15368752
Also in the Apology, he gives a much more agnostic approach and I find that more reassuring. Socrates uses like three different versions of the afterlife in various dialogue (eternal judgment, reincarnation, nothingness). It's hard to decipher which he actually believed.

[Anonymous No.15368778]

Later on he claims that the number 3 is immortal because oddness, a Form, is immortal. Therefore a soul must be immortal because aliveness is a Form and thus not perishable. I think there's a bit of trickery here. Any particular instance of the number is of course perishable, so only 3 as a Form is immortal. Likewise any particular soul could be perishable. But what's strange is the constant mix-up of Forms, abstract ideas, and physical instances.

[Anonymous No.15368868]

>>15368731
It seems like a pretty standard argument. Applying the principle of noncontradiction to Forms. What's hard to get? The soul is defined to be the form of aliveness; it has no physical counterpart, unlike a fire or an instance of the number 3.
>why can't the soul lose its property of aliveness
Because the soul is aliveness. It's not a property of the soul.

[Anonymous No.15368886]

>>15368731
>Why yes socrates, that is quite right

All the people in his book are soulless yes men, which is quite ironic considering the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.15368893]

>>15368886
they only say that when what he is saying is quite obviously common sense and they cling to some hyper-specific definition of a word

[Anonymous No.15368906]

>>15368868
You can't have your cake and eat it. If the soul is a Form and not an instance, then there are no individual souls, and this definition of soul becomes useless and begs the question of what our individual and particular souls are. If the soul is not a Form, then it can't just be some abstract property, it has to admit the property of aliveness, which it can also lose.

[Anonymous No.15368918]

>>15368731
Fire can not lose its heat property. What is a fire without heat? A contradiction.

There is no ridiculous premise in stating that the soul causes life, this is the literal definition of soul for the greeks. It is aliveness itself, so how is it ridiculous to state that that which gives life is that which gives life?

[Anonymous No.15368919]

>>15368758
Plato wrote the dialogues for the purpose of teaching, so perhaps the aim is to make students consider the different arguments and discuss them rather than accept or reject them as dogmatic statements.

[Anonymous No.15368923]

>>15368919
Why are all interlocutors like "certainly" and "it must be so" over and over then? It's pretty clear that Socrates is the voice of reason in this, and the purpose wasn't just proposing some impartial arguments.

[Anonymous No.15368932]

If you think Socrates is supposed to be dogmatic you should either keep reading philosophy to realize what dogmatic philosophy actually sounds like or go to the nearest rope store.

[Anonymous No.15368934]

>>15368868
>the soul can't die because it is defined as aliveness

[Anonymous No.15368940]

>>15368932
Who said anything about dogma?

[Anonymous No.15368957]

>>15368906
Not that guy but:
Plato talks abput the generation of souls in Timaeus. They are fully intelleggible objects modelled after the World of Ideas in its totality by the Demiurge. As such, they are particular universals (neither forms nor istantiations of a form, while still having an intelleggible order)

>>15368778
An instantiation of a soul in the natural world (since in the intelleggible world souls would obviously be immortal) requires a physical body. In this sense natural instantiations of souls are perishable, but only as long as you mean "separation of body and soul" by death.
The same would apply to numbers: a specific quantity in nature is perishable, its ideal counterpart isn't - and if, lets say, the ideal 3 was perishable, after its demise there could be no other instantiation of said number.

[Anonymous No.15368997]

>>15368893
No they dont, theres more than one occasion in socrates death dialogues where they blindly agree with a premise that is verging on non sensical and could easily be questioned further. The people in his dialogues dont express themselves like human beings and it feels like at times he uses these puppet characters to escape a thorough investigation of his claims.

[Anonymous No.15369003]

>>15368957
I see, so if the analogy is numbers, and a particular soul is an integer like three, then life is an instantiation like three apples, and soul-death is destruction of life, but not of the soul.

In other words, the soul-Form is immortal, but any particular instantiation of the soul is perishable. The problem is that this is almost tautological and I doubt it's what Socrates implies, since he talks of meeting other souls in the afterlife, meaning an instantiation of the soul doesn't require a body.

I get your points but I don't find this too compelling even if bracketing all the weird soul ideas.

[Anonymous No.15369007]

>>15368940
The conclusions are not the point of emphasis. One of the purposes of The Republic as a teaching tool is it doesn’t have one. Most of Socrates ideas don’t actually hold up.
It’s the journeys of his style of investigation and rhetorical ability (when not defending himself) is what is special. You read his words and you feel his personality and warmth bleed through the page. The guy was like a hearth to be around for anyone with genuine uncorrupted intelligence. That’s what’s special. Not bickering over the semantics or hard A=A logic of his conclusions.
It’s like attempting to compare Aristotle to an old man who is ‘just’ very wise. Different rubrics.

[Anonymous No.15369015]

>>15368747
You can build a new lyre and continue making music, which if we are talking about the soul would mean reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.15369025]

Phaedo has some bad arguments but you have to remember that it is Plato depicting Socrates just before his death. He doesn't necessarily agree with what Socrates is saying; he just wants you to think.

>>15368997
>The people in his dialogues dont express themselves like human beings

They're talking to man that is about to die. I'm sure they just agreed like that because he was about to die.

[Anonymous No.15369028]

>>15369007
I agree with you. It's not like I'm reading this to find out if the soul is really immortal, nor am I arguing against Plato himself... the point is that within the context of the dialogue I found Socrates' arguments weak and Simmias' and Cebes' much better.

[Anonymous No.15369044]

>>15369025
Can you recommend a dialogue that illustrates Plato's argumentation skills better?

[Anonymous No.15369059]

>>15369044
I'm reading through the complete works myself :\

[Anonymous No.15369068]

The soul discussion is the most boring part of Phaedo, even if it is the main theme of the book.

The best part is when Socrates explains his childhood inspiration to study Philosophy, when after learning about Anaxagoras' theory of the Mind as a force of order in the universe, he got obsessed with the idea that cause and effect follows the "best" possible path, so one should discover why it Is objectively preferable that things are exactly the way they are. Knowing this initial motivation explains a lot of his subsequent thought and also some general trends for Western civilization..

The second best part is at the end when Socrates describes what he thinks the world looks like.

[Anonymous No.15369071]

>>15369028
I felt that way pretty frequently in Plato’s works. I mean in Republic he describes a form of communism as an ideal. But I always found Socrates spirit and line of questioning interesting. Not what he would say but how he would say it.

His conclusions/arguements were/are what you would expect from a very wise old man in ~400BC. It’s his style and spirit that got him to be cherished for all time.
He has ignited a passion for philosophy in so many people. Imagine if you had to start with Aristotle instead.

[Anonymous No.15369077]

>>15369071
>Imagine if you had to start with Aristotle instead.
Well supposedly there were Aristotelian dialogues that are lost to time.

Maybe they were as entertaining.

[Anonymous No.15369083]

>>15369068
He also brings Anaxagoras up in the Apology.

[Anonymous No.15369087]

>>15369068
>The second best part is at the end when Socrates describes what he thinks the world looks like.
I only recently found out that the flat Earth theory went out of fashion slightly after this period, meaning that Socreates either foreshadowed a massive discovery, or he was aware of the evidence when most other people were not.

[Anonymous No.15369096]

>>15368731
>ridiculous premises
If we imply that your ridiculous premises that you refuse to mention are any good, we can take your post seriously.

[Anonymous No.15369103]

>>15368731
>a fire can lose its heat property
Try this and report back.

[Anonymous No.15369104]

>>15369096
I'm reading the afterword now and the translator of this eidition even states that we should look past the premises when they seem unacceptable to us now.

[Anonymous No.15369113]

>>15369077
I doubt King Autists conversations were as good as Socrates as much as I love both.

[Anonymous No.15369116]

>>15369087
Interestingly, before commenting that Earth is a gigantic sphere with several layers, he warns that he could explain why he thinks that, but it would take him way too much time to explain, so everyone present agreed to just listen to his theory and not demand arguments.

[Anonymous No.15369166]

>>15369003
Here's the problem: I don't think that, according to Plato, there is a Form of the Soul-Form - by this I mean an Idea of Soul, of which every particular soul is just an instantiation. In this sense souls are not instantiations themselves, rather they are Forms which can be instantiated in the natural world through embodiment. So, they can exist even when they are separated from the body, since their existence doesn't necessarily require embodiment (in fact their theleological goal is to escape this form of instantiation, so that they can permanently return to their proper place, the intelleggible world). The same can be said about any other intelleggible model: the Idea of Justice, to pick a random example, would exist even if it wasn't instantiated in the natural world.
Basically, the crux is that Plato seems to give to souls their own ontological status, since they are not Ideas nor instantiation of ideas, while still being intelleggible, since they are modelled after the only other non-Ideal intellegible object there is, namely the World of Ideas itself. Keep also in mind that the World of Ideas is also described as a living being with soul (Timaeus) and intellect (Sophist), which means that Im probably not that far off in my interpretation of this doctrine. Also them being "particular universals" seems to be in line with their method of creation exposed in Timaeus, where theyre described as a compound of "likeness" (universality) and "unlikeness" (particularity).

[Anonymous No.15369236]

>>15368731
IMAGINE BEING SUCH A RIDICULOUS(I AM LAUGHING AT YOU) BUGMEN WHO CANNOT COMPREHEND SUCH OUT-WARNING FREQUENCY OF A DISTRIBUTING LIFE, THE VERY JUDGEMENT ETERNAL WHICH REIGNS YOU OR I, ME LIKE HORSES-; A PROUD STALLION AM I, AND YOU... A BUGMAN! HAH! HAH! HAH! I LAUGH! THIS MAN THINKS HIMSELF INSANE, OR AT LEAST ME THINK, HE DOES NOT THINK, HE HAS NO FORMS WITH WHICH TO REACH AND GRAB; SO AN ARMLESS CREATURE I NAME HIM, HAILING TO THE ENDS OF EVERYDAY "AS SUCH", "I AM A MONSTER"... "AS-SUCH!" HAH!

STRECK! STRECK! STRECK!

I HEAR THE MOUNTAIN CALL, HE INSERTS HIMSELF INTO DEATH AND LIFE =: ABOVE THE CLOUDS LIFE, AND BELOW IT TURMOIL DEATH. EITHER WAY HE IS A BARRIER, (THE BARRIER?) AND YET-- PARDON ME I REALLY MUST LAUGH-- *HAH!* THE MOUNTAINOUS PARTING OF THE BRAVE SOULS DANGERS, LIKE A CRUCIFIX OF LIGHT, YOU... YOU! *HEEHEEHE* SEEM TO SUPPOSE, DIFFICULTLY TO BELIEVE AS ANY GOOD MAN!: THAT SOCRATES WAS WRONG... ?

A LIFE THAT FLICKERS,
OH BUT, SOCRATES WAS WRONG...
A DEATH THAT BITTERS,
OH BUT, SOCRATES WAS WRONG...
A REDEEMER THAT REDEEMS,
OH BUT, SOCRATES WAS WRONG...
AND SO A DREAM THAT DREAMS!
OH BUT.... ? HOW SHALL I SAY,
COMPARE THEE TO A JAR OF MORNING PROFANE...
OH BUT, A SOCRATES WAS WRONG... ?
A DEVIL THAT CHEECKS....


OH, WOE SO DREADFULLY!:-- LET ME TELL YOU A SECRET, THAT, IN MY AUSTRALIAN GUMNUT COTTAGE HERE;
THAT LIFE IN ITS INNERMOST APPREHENSION IS SYMBOLIC-- YOU ARE SYMBOLIC YOU FOOL! AND LET US HOPE A PURE ONE, TO MAKE A WAGNERIAN TRUE!

AHDUN AHDUN AHDUN, *BUMB* *BUMB* *BUMB* OHHHHHHHHHHHH

Shining in the rosy light of morning,
the air heavy
with blossom and scent,
full of every
unthought-of-joy,
a garden invited me
and, beneath a wondrous tree there,
richly hung with fruit,
to behold in blessed dream of love,
boldly promising fulfilment
to the highest of joy's desires,
the most beautiful woman:
Eva in Paradise.

In the evening twilight, night enfolded me;
on a steep path
I had approached
a spring
of pure water,
which laughed enticingly to me:
there beneath a laurel-tree,
with stars shining brightly through its leaves,
in a poet's waking dream I beheld,
holy and fair of countenance,
and sprinkling me with the precious water,
the most wonderful woman,
the Muse of Parnassus!

Most gracious day,
to which I awoke from a poet's dream!
The Paradise of which I had dreamed
in heavenly, new-transfigured splendour
lay bright before me,
to which the spring laughingly now showed me the path;
she, born there,
my heart's elect,
earth's loveliest picture,
destined to be my Muse,
as holy and grave as she is mild,
was boldly wooed by me;

in the sun's bright daylight,
through victory in song, I had won
Parnassus and Paradise!

[Anonymous No.15369242]

>>15369166
Thanks this was actually helpful.

[Anonymous No.15369255]

>>15369242
Your welcome have you tried>>15369236 ?

[Anonymous No.15369261]

>>15368731
You don't understand what he meant.

[Anonymous No.15369270]

>>15368923
>Why are all interlocutors like "certainly" and "it must be so" over and over then? It's pretty clear that Socrates is the voice of reason in this, and the purpose wasn't just proposing some impartial arguments.
Shitty translation. It's just the equivalent of saying "go on".

[Anonymous No.15369277]

>>15369270
What is the original Greek like, literally? Because pretty much every translation I've seen does that.

[Anonymous No.15369281]

>>15369277
literal =/= entire meaning

[Anonymous No.15369306]

Read Aristotle 1069a and onwards for an in depth explanation

Basically, the "ability to move on your own" (aka consciousness) must come from outside the universe, so it exists outside time

[Anonymous No.15369523]

>>15369104
>I'm reading the afterword now and the translator of this eidition even states that we should look past the premises when they seem unacceptable to us now.
Modern translators don't understand Plato. They do it for their CV. Read old versions. The older, the better.

[Anonymous No.15369538]

>>15369523
cope

[Anonymous No.15369541]

>>15369523
Would you consider 1800s modern? Because that's the date of my translation.

[Anonymous No.15369556]

>>15369538
Take an old translation and a modern translation, read them side by side, and watch how much meaning is lost and how insipid the text becomes.

>>15369541
Then you're probably mischaracterizing what the translator meant. Post it entirely.

[Anonymous No.15369573]

>>15369556
>Take an old translation and a modern translation, read them side by side, and watch how much meaning is lost and how insipid the text becomes.
You mean meaning that the translator inserted. If you're talking about Jowett, he's rather infamous for that.

[Anonymous No.15369608]

>>15369573
I don't bother with English translations, but modern academics are infamous for attacking their predecessors over "making stuff up", when most of the time is just the modern academics being ignorant on the matter.

[Anonymous No.15369609]

There was two points in the dialogue where he addresses the concept of opposites and these seem to contradict each other. In one he says they cant admit each other but in the other he says they deliver each other. He makes a statement about how these two argunents dont contradict each other, but I didnt understand it. Can anyone help?

[Anonymous No.15369698]

>>15369608
Did you just invent this infamy out of thin air? Jowett turns Plato into a Christian.

[Anonymous No.15370205]

>>15368906
that partake aliveness insofar as they are alive

[Anonymous No.15370436]

>>15368918
>>15369261
This.
>>15369103
This guy wins the sarcasm award, though.

[Anonymous No.15370445]

>>15369698
Christianity is basically Platonism with spiritual mumbo jumbo thrown in.

[Anonymous No.15370464]

>>15369609
Yes, he clears this up when he responds to Cebes, who brings up the objection.

>You have spoken up like a man,” he said, “but you do not observe the difference between the present doctrine and what we said before. We said before that in the case of concrete things opposites are generated from opposites; whereas now we say that the abstract concept of an opposite can never become its own opposite, either in us or in the world about us. Then we were talking about things which possess opposite qualities and are called after them, but now about those very opposites the immanence of which gives the things their names. We say that these latter

[Anonymous No.15370535]

>>15368747
false equivalent.

[Anonymous No.15370542]

>>15368731
I don't even know why bugmen get into the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.15370585]

>>15368778
I have a feeling we are missing something, either because of a mistranslation of a term that is possibly being used in a peculiar, technical sense, or ignorance of some aspect of the philosophical background that Socrates is speaking from, like certain details of Pythagoreanism. cf Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, Volume 1: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans

[Anonymous No.15371531]

>>15370585
Interesting that you bring up those two points, because the edition I'm reading has all sorts of notes regarding words' technical and colloquial use, and frequent annotations on Simmias and Cebes Pythagorean background.

[Anonymous No.15372580]

>>15370542
Explain?

[Anonymous No.15374205]

>>15368731
>Similarly, the property of aliveness is the opposite of death, so one cannot be alive and dead at the same time.

misrepresentation of the argument, death is the ABSENCE of life, not the opposite. and the only point of forms are to help the reader reach proper monism, i.e. all is one and one is all. they aren't actually real. for example, the exact same amount of material has existed in the universe since it's inception, that amount has not changed, the structure has not changed, it has just moved around and taken different FORMS

[Anonymous No.15374222]

>>15374205

furthermore, modern people see the body as having ownership of a soul, while the greeks saw the soul as having ownership of a body, relatively speaking. if something terrible were to happen to you like losing an arm or a leg, obviously that missing leg is not 'you' in metaphysical sense. that extends to the entire body, and really the entire world and everything in it

[Anonymous No.15375550]

>>15370535
It's the metaphor Socrates himself uses in the dialogue.

[Anonymous No.15375660]

>>15368731
I'm pretty sure you're purposely misrepresenting and degrading his arguments.If not re-red the Phaedo

[Anonymous No.15375716]

>>15368758
Apology is generally considered to be a historical account, while throughout the rest of Plato's work Socrates is only a mouthpiece.

[Anonymous No.15375744]

>>15375716
Plato was only like 20 something when Socrates died so I wouldn't take any of them as what EXACTLY happened. I believe Socrates did have viewpoints similar to what is written of him.

[Anonymous No.15375776]

>>15375744
If I recall correctly, Xenophon's version of the trial is fairly similar to this and many scholars hold the story to be truthful.

[Anonymous No.15375786]

Heres a Phaedo passage that struck me as nonsensical:

>For example, when the body is hot and thirsty, does not the soul incline us against drinking? and when the body is hungry, against eating? And this is the only instance out of ten thousand of the opposition of the soul to the things of the body.

>Very true.


This never happens, what is he talking about?

[Anonymous No.15375832]

https://voca.ro/9Zv5cdox2XI

Just a wake up call :3

[Anonymous No.15375944]

>>15369068
Those are definitely great sections. The text where he discusses the misanthrope and the misologist, in particular, is one of the greatest passages in all of philosophy. I read that in a nihilistic phase, and it changed me.
However, they give context to the rest of his arguments. His arguments were not meant to be dogmatic or final, because Socrates wanted his friends to think, not to simply accept. Towards the end, when he gives this long sermon about how he thinks the world really is in terms of form and the afterlife, he punctuates it by saying that such isn't necessarily the case, but it's a good thought to think. That's why he made it so long and detailed, and exhorted others to ponder on it. I think this is because Socrates wanted his friends to think of the world, the divine, their souls, and the afterlife in terms of the greatest parts of themselves: their justice and virtue.
People get hung up on the details of arguments on reincarnation or other specifics in the dialogue, but I think they miss the point. His "sermon" at the end doesn't even compliment the ideas of reincarnation he seems to deliver earlier in the text. This is why Phaedo must be read whole, and with Crito and the Apology in particular. He was at more than the simple appearance or specifics. His point was something deeper.
Like his dialogues, Socrates's life ended with an open question.

Notice the end of Phaedo,
>Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.

[Anonymous No.15375966]

>>15375944
Yeah, I choose to believe in reincarnation but the point put forward in Apology is specifically agnostic.

[Anonymous No.15375990]

>>15368731
is there anyone who writes about the arrogance of simpletons who think they're worthy of critiquing a genius warrior-philosopher like Socrates, especially when they haven't been instructed by a genius of a similar caliber?

[Anonymous No.15376026]

>>15375990
whats a warrior-philosopher?

[Anonymous No.15376055]

>>15375990
“And even should we grant, by way of concession, that no one either is, was, or will be more sagacious than our hypothetical sage, not even so is it proper to believe him. For since it is the sagacious above all who, in the construction of their doctrines, like to champion unsound doctrines and to make them appear sound and true, whenever this sharp-witted person makes a statement we shall not know whether he is stating the matter as it really is, or whether he is defending as true what is really false and persuading us to think of it as something true, on the ground that he is more sagacious than all other men and therefore incapable of being refuted by us. So not even to this man will we assent, as one who judges matters truly, since, though we suppose it possible that he speaks the truth, we also suppose that owing to his excessive cleverness he makes his statements with the object of defending false propositions as true. Consequently, in the judgement of propositions we ought not to believe even the man who is thought to be the most clever of all.”
—Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism

[Anonymous No.15376075]

>>15368731
fire cannot lose its heat property, fire is always hot. We can lose fire, but the property persists. Same as the soul, we can cannot remove the aliveness from the soul, but the soul can be lost.
Socraties myth about where you soul being lost in that whirlpool, i forget the name

[Anonymous No.15376077]

>>15375832
Based :3
Never, ever, stop doing this

[Anonymous No.15376087]

>>15375786
Yeah I found it confusing too but I think he's talking about the fact that we can go against our drives, when we're ill for example.

[Anonymous No.15376099]

>>15375990
>dude don't you dare even think about arguing with a god like socrates

[Anonymous No.15376132]

>>15376099

[Anonymous No.15376157]

>>15375832
A conversation would have been nice because I don't really feel typing out my response in a couple of paragraphs while you get to pick it apart freely for 20 minutes. You made some good points and I accept that you're way more knowledgeable than I am. I also think, however, that you gratuitously injected way too many ideas into the interpretation, and most of them aren't part of a historical context but came way after Plato. It's like telling somebody they can't understand Aquinas without reading Heidegger first.

[Anonymous No.15376167]

>>15376055
ah yes, we should then believe the skeptic, who makes himself the most clever by convicting the philosopher of duplicity through cleverness, rather than the philosopher concerned with universal truth, wisdom, and virtue

>>15376099
you may as well have posted an image of yourself consuming excrement instead of making this post, because it would have achieved the same result

[Anonymous No.15376189]

>>15375990
You've just made an inherently anti-Socratic post without even realizing it. Argument is above character in the discernment of truth.

[Anonymous No.15376200]

>>15375786
>>15376087
You've never been too sick to eat before even when you needed to?

[Anonymous No.15376219]

>>15375832
holy based

[Anonymous No.15376248]

>>15375786
Typical weak modern man, who cannot even conceive the idea that the soul inclines against bodily pleasures.

[Anonymous No.15376258]

>>15376189
who better facilitates the discernment of truth:
he who is patient, or he who is impatient?
he who aspires to wisdom, or he who thinks himself wise?

[Anonymous No.15376271]

>>15376167
>ah yes, we should then believe the skeptic, who makes himself the most clever by convicting the philosopher of duplicity through cleverness, rather than the philosopher concerned with universal truth, wisdom, and virtue
What is this incoherent nonsense? What point are you trying to make

[Anonymous No.15376278]

>>15376271
He means Socrates is right and the sophist is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15376289]

>>15375832
https://voca.ro/jZ7ZzjTnhop

[Anonymous No.15376296]

>>15376271
wait a couple decades and maybe I'll have enough to say to produce a book for you to get filtered by, but I'm not a genius so good luck

[Anonymous No.15376313]

>>15376278
>>15376296
It seems as though you are arguing that the fact Socrates is concerned with ‘universal truth, wisdom, and virtue’ makes him more creditable—despite the creditability of these things, and his opinion of them, not being demonstrated at the outset, but merely assumed. Which would be a rhetorical statement, the kind of verbal flattery that Plato has Socrates condemn.

[Anonymous No.15376347]

>>15376258
Its hilarious how you fail to notice the irony in yourself.

And OP doesn't present himself as wise, even if he may be led by flawed reasoning, he seems to seek the truth.

[Anonymous No.15376358]

>>15376248
Drinking when thirsty is not the same as drinking for pleasure. Even if he had your point in mind, he chose a very poor example to make it.

[Anonymous No.15376364]

It seems that he's saying the bringer of a quality is responsible for that property and it can't ever be the opposite.
Putting aside the assumption that the soul brings the body to life. If by admitting the opposite property it destroys its assigned quality (as 2+1 destroys its evenness and becomes odd). Who is to say that when the body (brought life by the soul) dies, the adding of the opposite doesn't destroy the soul?
Another thing is whether a tool used for one purpose can be used for its opposite. There are probably more examples but one is that the oxygen which fans flames can also suffocate them, bringing both life and death.

[Anonymous No.15376393]

>>15375990

[Anonymous No.15376438]

>>15376358
Drinking when thirsty is obviously pleasurable.

[Anonymous No.15376454]

>>15376438
I ain't that anon but if the drink gives you pleasure it doesn't guarantee you're drinking it FOR pleasure.

[Anonymous No.15376497]

>>15376026
me.

[Anonymous No.15376503]

pleasure by itself only exists as a degeneration of the natural functions. pleasure is always secondary to the main purpose of an act. to eat good food and drink a good drink is always pleasurable but that's not the reason for why we eat and drink. the same applies to sex: pleasure is merely secondary to the primary function of procreation. every time we seek sex and masturbation for pleasure we are acting against the natural law

[Anonymous No.15376534]

>>15376503
It's just such a lesser thing, anything corporeal is lesser.

To be hungry is a need, a physical need. It is low on the platonic scale of contemplative things, however to remove this want is the point of eating.

Our lives would be the better if we did not have to eat. But such is life. We are more than souls :3

[Anonymous No.15376556]

>>15376534
what is the heart in the body-soul-spirit tripartite division? tell me, socratic :3 vocaroo poster

[Anonymous No.15376564]

>>15376289
I miss Peterson

[Anonymous No.15376583]

>>15376454
Semantics.

[Anonymous No.15376614]

>>15376583
Not true. It is understandable and obvious that your soul may oppose you when you want to drink only for pleasure and in excessive amounts, it is however not understandable that your soul would oppose you when your body needs a drink to survive. The latter is unlikely to happen and there is no reason to believe it ever would.

[Anonymous No.15376618]

>>15376454
If you are drinking to quench the thirst, you are drinking for pleasure.

[Anonymous No.15376764]

>>15376614
Really sick people may be unable to eat. Another example would be someone freezing to death who feels warm.

[Anonymous No.15376839]

>>15369068
Imagine being this much of a retard
The best part of Phaedo is the very ending, when Socrates reminds one of the guys about the rooster payment which back then represented a offering to Asclepius as a sign of thanks for being cured of a disease

[Anonymous No.15376880]

>>15368731
I think his argument makes sense if you believe that those two properties can coexist in separate spheres, but along the same arc.

When you're "alive," you are not dead. As far as you know, still being alive, you are as immortal as you'll ever be, as is your soul.

When you are "dead," you are not alive. Your soul, if it depended on the living body, is also dead. You in concept and idea still exist in the world, if you believe the world continues on after you die. Your "soul" is the collective imprint you left in the course of you life on family, friends, your profession, etc.

If the soul doesn't depend on the living body, then that's a separate and incredibly difficult question. No one, not Socrates, or any Pope, or scientists, or artists, or politicians, no one knows what happens when you die. They can only give you advice on how to live before you do so. They can speculate to the realms of forms, to Heaven, to a natural occurrence, to some transcendent aesthetic inspiration, but they're all still alive, dummy. They don't know what it's like to be dead and you won't be able to ask them when they ever really do find out.

It's kind of like your fire question -- is a fire just the act of burning? Or is it the entire act itself? Its building, its creation, the first spark, the maintenance, the peak, the dying, and finally the end? Is all of that the fire, or just the middle part?

[Anonymous No.15376887]

>>15376764
>Really sick people may be unable to eat.

Then it is not their soul that is preventing them from eating. What are you even trying to prove?

[Anonymous No.15376892]

>>15376887
It is the soul in Socrates' conception of that term.

[Anonymous No.15376908]

>>15376892
How so? If you are too sick to literally open your mouth and digest the food, how is that your soul's doing?

[Anonymous No.15376932]

>>15376908
The soul is any internal thought process, even something like the feeling of pain. In Phaedo (or perhaps a different dialogue. I don't recall), he mentions the interconnectedness of pain and pleasure and how this relates to the soul.

[Anonymous No.15377016]

>>15376932
So a sickness in the physical world could infect your body AND your soul so that your soul would decide not to eat when your body needs to eat? Doesn't that make the opposition of the soul and body even less likely? I thought his main idea was that the soul lives in a separate realm and is persistent and unmalleable?

Even if you were to convince me with this argument, the quote posted above was not making the claims you are making. Plato presented the opposition of the soul to the body as self-evident and trivial and thats my main problem with it.

[Anonymous No.15377421]

>>15368731
I think it's pretty weird Socrates never existed and was a made up character

[Anonymous No.15377441]

>>15377421
False.

[Anonymous No.15378128]

>>15372580
They approach these thinkers with their modern preconceptions in mind, and then got suprised when they find out that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. are far from the social justice, pro-vegan, pro-socialism that they had imagined them to be

[Anonymous No.15378218]

>>15369068
>he got obsessed with the idea that cause and effect follows the "best" possible path, so one should discover why it Is objectively preferable that things are exactly the way they are

Which part of the text refers to this implied consolation of objective preference toward the current state of a thing, rather than it's potential 'best' state?

[Anonymous No.15378402]

>>15378128
>pro-vegan
Take the Pythagorean pill.
>Plutarch - On Meat Eating
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/De_esu_carnium*/1.html
>Porphyry - On abstinence from animal food
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_abstinence_01_book1.htm

[Anonymous No.15378422]

>>15378128
It looks like you're the illiterate retard. We're all discussing this within an antiquated ontology, and the points of contention are about the reasoning, not the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15378445]

>>15378402
Or go for Mahayana Buddhism

[Anonymous No.15378543]

>>15368868
what's his take on animals then? do they have souls too? and if not, how come they are alive?

[Anonymous No.15378596]

Plato makes a lot of nonsensical arguments. Some scholars believe that he was intentionally giving bad arguments to make you think. Others say, the arguments are not specious, but that what he's trying to describe is indescribable in language, so he has to make a lot of imprecise metaphors. People don't typically believe that he was actually just bad at logic, but that is also possible.

[Anonymous No.15378613]

>>15378596
He was creating a dialectic. You'd honestly need to read Pr. and Post. Analytics and the Topics to understand this. :3

[Anonymous No.15378681]

>>15375990
>genius warrior-philosopher like Socrates

[Anonymous No.15378691]

>>15378681
Well he was a genius, a warrior and a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15379257]

>>15378596
>what he's trying to describe is indescribable in language
then whats the point in any of this?

[Anonymous No.15379592]

>>15379257
>whats the point in attempting to convey something that is difficult to express via the only possible medium to express it?
no idea man

[Anonymous No.15379744]

>>15378596
Plato's dialogues are plays that could be interpreted on a stage. This view simply kills any academic criticism

[Anonymous No.15379752]

>>15379592
>difficult to express
>indescribable
well which is it

[Anonymous No.15379764]

>>15379744
Buddy, I'm sorry, but that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone ever say.

Those would be the most boring plays ever and would require an insane amount of artistic liberty to make even remotely watchable. :3

[Anonymous No.15379809]

>>15379764
They are told with characters and dialogue. He is right. Also Symposium and Shorter Hippias would probably include nudity.

[Anonymous No.15379810]

>>15379764
Who taught me that was a true aristotelian philosopher who has no part in contemporary academy

[Anonymous No.15379820]

>>15379764
Also the Socratic dialogues were already adapted into a film at least once.

https://youtu.be/SY-mgZbuxBA

[Anonymous No.15379831]

>>15379810
>HE WAS A TROOO ARISTOTLEIAN DISCIPLE. HE WAS LEGITTT

Man, studying literature has not LITERALLY become a dick waving contest has it?

>>15379809
No, he's terribly wrong. They aren't plays and there is a reason for that. The only people who think that Platonic dialogues could be plays haven't read enough plays. I'd recommend Shakespeare, please.

[Anonymous No.15379867]

>>15379831
Calm your mind, vocaroo poster. What is the problem about mentioning my professor?

Do you deny Plato was a poet? I read Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Shakespeare and have no problem considering the dialogue plays, it does not lower plato's merit, on the contrary.

[Anonymous No.15379869]

>>15379831
They're literally written like plays with character dialogue. You can say they're not good plays but they are composed in a similar style.

[Anonymous No.15379887]

>>15379867
>>15379869

>They're literally written like plays with character dialogue

No. You get 50000000000000 downvotes.

[Anonymous No.15379896]

>>15379887
The copy I own is. Absolutely yes.

[Anonymous No.15379910]

>>15379896
I'm so sorry for modern editing and modern translations of platonic dialogues.

It should just be the character's name and the dialogue he says after it. That's not how a play is.

[Anonymous No.15379933]

>>15379887
Uhh sweaty you are being stubborn

>>15379910
Yes that is. Plato even gives a brief description of the setting at the beginnings "and Socrates was walking etc".

[Anonymous No.15379986]

>>15379933
Sure but a play has various scenes, and settings for those scenes, in addition to actions the characters take, and who is entering or leaving.

Platonic dialogues have very little, if any at all, of those. They are supposed to be a dialectic, read like any other non-fiction. Aristotle wrote dialogues as well for this very purpose.

[Anonymous No.15380049]

>>15379986
They are dialectic plays. You did not answer if you consider Plato a poet.

One could also say all the greek plays are dialectic. At the protagonist-chorus level as well as at the fear-pity level Aristotle mentions for the catharsis in the tragedies.

[Anonymous No.15380059]

>>15379986
They're static conversations in a fucking room. Quit being autistic and retarded.

[Anonymous No.15380068]

>>15380049
>One could also say all the greek plays are dialectic.
They are noticeably different from Platonic dialogues however.

[Anonymous No.15380074]

>>15379986
Also the book on Socrates I own literally compares them to plays and says they are meant to be read the same way.

[Anonymous No.15380115]

>>15380074
It's because modern academic culture is retarded, don't worry. You'll see why when you read these books

>>15378613

[Anonymous No.15380120]

It comes down to your view of Plato: was he a poet or not? If he was, was he a lyric or a playwright?

[Anonymous No.15380165]

>>15380115
When you want to get your degrees and write your dissertation of Socrates then I will read it, I assure you. Until then you're just a creepy guy who obsesses over Butterfly on the internet.

[Anonymous No.15380180]

>>15380165
Right yeah obsession... that's what you call her masturbating to me over the internet you fucking loser.

Meanwhile I'm in a threesome getting told I'm about to get sandwiched, buddy when it comes to women it's the people who swing at the pitches that get the home runs, not the bitches in the stands. :3

[Anonymous No.15380536]

oh no the vocaroo guy is the same butterfly fan

[Anonymous No.15380542]

>>15380536
I mean, I'm also someone important in reality, but just because butterfly masturbated to me doesn't mean I'm necessarily interested in her. :3

[Anonymous No.15380549]

>>15380542
you have a bad taste in music that's what i know

[Anonymous No.15380553]

>>15380549
What is my taste in music...? What have you seen me post?

[Anonymous No.15380563]

>>15380542
Butterfly is a lesbian and even if she were straight, she would want nothing to do with you.

[Anonymous No.15380574]

>>15380563
Like I said, she's masturbated to me before on here.

So regardless of whatever you think about 'lesbianism' I would say it's time to reconsider. Very often women don't understand how brainwashed the masses are into being gay. Certain physical and psychological 'characteristics' are falsely claimed as being 'homosexual' in some way.

She isn't gay, she was really horny for me and liked it. Simple as

[Anonymous No.15380617]

>>15380574
>she

[Anonymous No.15380633]

>>15380617
Her ass and pussy looked really fit, bro.

[Anonymous No.15380809]

>>15380617
Butterfly has made her transphobia well known.

[Anonymous No.15380828]

>>15380574

is this the real catfacefag? how could you be so flustered as to forget your tag, thats like forgetting your trip

[Anonymous No.15380831]

>>15369044
From what I've read: the Apology, the Symposium (only Socrates' speech), and the Republic have much better arguments, especially when you're able to read between the lines to see what he's really getting at.

[Anonymous No.15380839]

>>15380828
As long as I mention it at one point, what's the need of using it again?

No need to be an idiot about this, kid.

[Anonymous No.15380852]

>>15380839

its no big deal, i just wanted to confirm if you were pissed off or not, which you are. usually you are more composed and coy with your responses, maybe you should go for a walk or something

[Anonymous No.15380862]

>>15380852
Oh no, it's just this has been going on for a little while now. She wants my dick, but I'm not pissed at you or anything.

[Anonymous No.15380906]

>>15380862

word, i feel you bro