"I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person."
-- Socrates, quoted by Plato, 'The Death of Socrates'
-------------------
Quoth Laurie:
"Socrates, you rock.
Some interesting facts about Socrates. He never wrote a single line in his life. He was known to stand lost in thought for hours at a time. He heard and followed, what he believed, was a divine voice within. He devoted his life to the teaching of Athen's youth, but was known to be indifferent to his own sons. He was considered enigmatic by his own countrymen, and by his disciples as well. As an aside, but perhaps not, he was known to be exceedingly ugly, a big potbelly, bulging eyes, flat nose. He was a beautiful mind. Socrates was known to say "Athens is a sluggish horse, and I am the gadfly trying to sting it to life." (what do people do to gadflies?)
The Sophists considered themselves the learned and wise of their culture. They were Masters of rhetoric, and charged money for their teaching.
But Socrates never wanted to be known as a teacher. He never charged for his "teachings". He remained poor all his life. "She is wisest who knows she knows nothing."
In life and death, he considered himself a "philo-sopher" -- a lover of wisdom, a lover of truth. He could have saved himself from drinking the hemlock by appealing for mercy, or agreeing to leave Athens, and quit his philosophy. He said, it would be like asking a soldier to turn back in battle if he thought he was going to be killed. He chose to die, because for him truth was far greater than death of the body.
He listened to people, asked questions, never "taught" people the truth --- and he sparked in every one who dared talk with him the spirit of inquiry."
18 comments:
Socrates, you rock.
Some interesting facts about Socrates. He never wrote a single line in his life. He was known to stand lost in thought for hours at a time. He heard and followed, what he believed, was a divine voice within. He devoted his life to the teaching of Athen's youth, but was known to be indifferent to his own sons. He was considered enigmatic by his own countrymen, and by his disciples as well. As an aside, but perhaps not, he was known to be exceedingly ugly, a big potbelly, bulging eyes, flat nose. He was a beautiful mind. Socrates was known to say "Athens is a sluggish horse, and I am the gadfly trying to sting it to life." (what do people do to gadflies?)
The Sophists considered themselves the learned and wise of their culture. They were Masters of rhetoric, and charged money for their teaching.
But Socrates never wanted to be known as a teacher. He never charged for his "teachings". He remained poor all his life. "She is wisest who knows she knows nothing."
In life and death, he considered himself a "philo-sopher" -- a lover of wisdom, a lover of truth. He could have saved himself from drinking the hemlock by appealing for mercy, or agreeing to leave Athens, and quit his philosophy. He said, it would be like asking a soldier to turn back in battle if he thought he was going to be killed. He chose to die, because for him truth was far greater than death of the body.
He listened to people, asked questions, never "taught" people the truth --- and he sparked in every one who dared talk with him the spirit of inquiry.
A great man, certainly, but if we remember his good points we should also remember the bad: he approved of slavery, and he approved of war and conquest. Like everyone else he had done his time as a soldier, in his youth.
"I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul.
He was leaning towards biblical truth.Christ said,(If memory serves) that even God loves the sparrow and how much more does He love you? That a man would lay down his life for another.
I hope Socrates repented of his sins and accepted Christ into his heart (for if he did He is in Heaven now) minus the ugliness, potbelly, bulging eyes and flat nose. (Kinda reminds me of myself minus the beautiful mind.)
Take care Laurie, you're a beautiful lady with a beautiful mind :)
Terry said: "I hope Socrates repented of his sins and accepted Christ into his heart "
Given that he died 399 BC, that would have been somewhat difficult for him to do. But he could have accepted Mithra who based on all accounts was a nearly identical character to the Christ that came later.
One additional problem, though. The concept of "sin" was not yet invented back then. In fact, Sokrates, being the leading philosopher of the time, pursued truth and morals as the highest virtue. There was no room for dogma in his teachings.
For this reason, I doubt that he was too excited about Mithra either. He probably just kept his potbelly, bulging eyes and flat nose, and went to Hell.
Oh wait, Hell wasn't invented back then either ...
It's pretty unlikely Mithraism would have appealed to him, but you never know. Hopefully it's not as depicted in The Divine Comedy, where those who lived virtuous lives still went to Hell because they died before Jesus' sacrifice. They got the good part of Hell (meaning that at least they weren't tortured for anything), but they were denied Paradise. That's Christians for you I guess.
Terry, you might want to lay off this "Biblical truth" talk. It is your opinion that it's truth, an opinion not everyone shares.
Joe Dick said...
Terry, you might want to lay off this "Biblical truth" talk. It is your opinion that it's truth, an opinion not everyone shares.
They've been told. Let them die in their sins, you said what needed to be said as God would have it. So many do not understand that Christ was and is God and that without Him no one will ever see the Kingdom of Heaven.
Let no man silence you Miss Terry, like God said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
You are not ashamed of Christ and I simply shook my head at that person's comment stating that sin was "invented" Poor souls. I for one know better myself. Pray for them regardless honey.
Judging by Terry and Christ is saviour's comments, when you sign up as a Christian you're required to check your brain at the door. (Thank you Nuns on the Run.)
Guys, let's not have any religious firefights.
Live and let live.
Anonymous said...
Judging by Terry and Christ is saviour's comments, when you sign up as a Christian you're required to check your brain at the door. (Thank you Nuns on the Run.)
Remember that when you cry out in anguish after death for not knowing or accepting Christ as your Saviour Anon.
BTW, you don't "sign" up as a Christian. You Repent of your sins and invite Jesus inside your heart.
It's not a laughing matter. I feel pity for those for reject Christ and end up in the lake of fire. there's no exit son.
How arrogant. I'll slaughter a lamb in your honor tomorrow, so that Mithra will take notice of your arrogance and cause untold psoriatic sores to open on your face on national TV.
I'm not too sure that people who make lots of money are always virtuous...
"He approved of slavery"
Well, not that I support the idea myself, but we're modern people in a modern world, where machine power abounds. In ancient times, slavery was an economic necessity, otherwise the cost of labour would have been too high. Perhaps, even, that non-slaver societies collapsed because they couldn't keep up with the competition?...
Nowadays, modern disguised slavery is different, because slaves cannot be consumers. So today's system not only reinvented slavery, but it's being suicidal in that.
Before we judge a person (like Socrates) too harshly, we have the duty to consider the world and culture in which they lived. In 1943, you would've had great difficulty finding people supporting a peace treaty with the ever-conquering Axis. War meant survival, period.
I hate to support war, ever, but in such case I could only criticize the methods, not the war itself.
And sometimes, the police need to have weapons, even to paradoxally "keep the peace", because you can't always respond to force and tyranny with words and non-violence. It worked for Gandhi because he was facing the British, civilized people (compared to the average). Try it in today's Iraq, but first tell me where I should bring the wreath.
This is the whole dichotomy of war. On one side, you have Ares, god of savage war and violent bloodlust. On the other, you have Athena, goddess of wisdom, learning, and military strategy. Athena was always there to protect her city from Ares and his minions.
Interestingly, you cannot stop Ares' belliquous rampages using Aphrodite, goddess of love. Because Aphrodite, who married Hephaistos the hunchback blacksmith, took Ares in her bed as a lover and gave him many children. All monsters or ruthless thugs. (Sigh.)
My conclusion, friends, bloggers, countrymen: reason must come before the love of peace. It is called self-defense.
Just my two drachmas on this specific point.
Terry said...
"(Kinda reminds me of myself minus the beautiful mind.)"
An ugly, pot-bellied, bulgy-eyed, flat-nosed minus with no redeeming mind qualities? Come on, nobody's THAT "talented in reverse". You're asking us to believe you're worse than Quasimodo!
I'd say, you've got lotsa imagination! :-)
"Miss Terry"? We're back to the "mys-tery" of guys being mistaken for gals again? Puh-leeze!
Yo, dude, I got nuthin' against drag queens, but you might want to expect that some men here are ordinary heteros, know what I mean, bro? ;-)
You might inadvertently insult somebody's masculinity some day. A biker maybe, a cowboy, a Republican, Mike Tyson, Mike Jackson...
Final Identity,
I beseech you, have pity. I mean, the lamb did nothing to you! Don't risk inadvertently insulting somebody's PETAishness, or you'll have a naked protest in front of your house.
I'd rather have excited naked young ladies in front of MY house!
Pascal, am I crazy or did you just attempt to defend the practice of slavery? You might see it differently if you had to work in an Athenian silver mine. Some slaves may have had a good, easy life, probably better than a lot of free men. Some had it much, much worse. Working in a mine in terrible conditions with a very, very short life expectancy and no chance that your condition would ever change was probably not a good life and not something that can be defended.
History also shows us that abandoning a near-total reliance on slave labour brought more technical innovation in a few centuries than in all the thousands that preceded it. One of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire is an over-reliance on slavery. Never mind the abhorrence of it on moral grounds (and while their morality was different from ours, some did still recognize it as wrong), it never made economic sense.
"Pascal, am I crazy or did you just attempt to defend the practice of slavery?"
Neither, actually. :-)
Slavery is very bad in its core principle, it goes agaist human dignity and rights, against everything I believe in. All I'm saying is, in ancient times where human life often had little factual value, slavery was very convenient, and considered "useful". If we set all moral principles aside, this is true, slavery was very useful to the people who were the slavers, be they persons or cities or nations.
Also, a person sold into slavery, for instance a captive after a lost war, woudn't have even thought of complaining, because it was commonly accepted practice, and they would've done the same in case of their own victory.
It's certainly not one bit noble or good. I'm just being cynically realistic about a certain state of things in these days of past. And I'm very happy that things have changed.
Although, to be honest, they haven't changed so much. But the principles have evolved, at least. And while slavery still exists in disguised or alternate forms, today it is shameful and done in clandestinity. It's something of a consolation, I guess.
I still stand by one thing, though, that we cannot condemn old Socrates for advocating slavery, because the world we grew in wasn't the same as his. Equal rights for women seem self-evident, yet in a prehistoric tribal society they are hopeless for practical reasons. Namely, in a world where men fight while women must stay safe when pregnant and protect the kids, where a single surviving male could respawn a whole clan while every woman was precious and a coveted treasure.
Women deserve equal rights, no question about it. And today, they can hope for them. Such wasn't always the case. I very fond of this more evolved world.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying anything that we legitimately dislike in our modern world. I'm just trying to understand. And to educate rather than to judge. Slavery? Definitely bad. People doing it? Well, maybe sometimes they just didn't know better.
Remind me... how long has it been since slavery was abolished? Less than 200 years, I believe, right? And in many under-developed or under-educated parts of the world, it's still going on, in one way or another.
I'm not even talking about segregation laws!
Nice post, Joe. I like a man (or woman!) who thinks.
Yesterday, I heard again on TV a French expression I like a lot: "Hey, you've forgotten to be dumb, haven't you?"
Usually said affectionately to a child or an illiterate person who shows real smarts, and whom you acknowledge as an equal mind.
You could say it's the joking opposite of a demeaning expression. :-)
"Never mind the abhorrence of it on moral grounds (and while their morality was different from ours, some did still recognize it as wrong), it never made economic sense."
Otherwise put, many Romans remembered to be dumb, eh? Slavery was not just a cheap way to get work force. It was also, and perhaps before anything else, a means to put people down, to destroy the social status of an enemy as a citizen with freedom and rights. Not exactly a civilized attitude...
Perhaps the best thing the Romans did, was to have a military victory over the Greek, followed by a cultural conquest of Rome by the Greeks. It added a good dose of civilization to an otherwise primitive people, the kind that wouldn't think to question the morality or intelligence of a practice like slavery.
I would apologize for nearly shocking you, but it initiated a very interesting comment in response, which taught me a new thing or two, so seeing the end result I'm not very sorry. :-)
Rats! I'm too late to indulge into another flame, calling Pascal a slaver before he clarified some slightly misformulated ideas!
Next time, missie, next time...
'Ey! What do you 'ave against rats, Monsieur Bitteur Anonyme?
I'll 'ave yoo know I only eat the finest french cheese and do not feed on garbedge like my relateeves, so I am perfectly clean and 'ealthy.
I 'ope you are not a rat-cist, oui? Wee can all get along with a litteul efforte, certainement.
Nice post, Joe. I like a man (or woman!) who thinks.
Well me too! Small world. :-)
For the record, I wasn't really condemning Socrates - I was just saying was that he was not exactly the flawless human being laurie and others seem to think he was.
He had his faults, many of which he can't be blamed for because he was - as is everyone - a product of his time. (Which is I think part of what you were saying.) He was certainly a superior human being to most of his contemporaries.
So we're in agreement.
A pity, really. I love a good bickering, but you're too un-cooperative. :-)
Ah well, I'll just insult Rémy's family then. Or be sickeningly sweet to Bitter Anonymous. I hope he's diabetic!
Post a Comment