This idiot was about to win his case but he managed to talk himself back into the execution. Wtf?

What are the implications of this?
Is western philosophy a lie?

It mean That the origin of philosophy is the mind of a squizo dude named after his fuckin back. Way to go west, your thougth is based in a mentally ill scumbag (plato) and in a blind old fart (homer). We should guide the blind and teach the idiot, Not the other Way arround. With That said im quieting literature for a most sane field like STEMS. Amy rational person will follow me.

Literally no reason to believe this.

Socrates was a life-denying faggot for willingly going to his death

the philosophy isn't contingent on his existence so it doesn't matter. i've personally always been skeptical as fuck about anything plato wrote but that's probably just because he was a massive cunt

dude that whole series of movies has always baffled me for how simultaneously watchable and mind-numbingly boring they are.

Lol, there are things more important than life, chicken-fucker

Certainly none of them are what Socrates died for. He died because he was a legalist faggot who failed to understand that laws should be situational more than anything. Instead he wanted to ruin all of Western philosophy by throwing his life away. So not only is he life-denying, he's also selfish.

Distrust thyself.

Aristophanes....Xenophon...Plato...They were all in on it right?

>that laws should be situational more than anything.

Says fucking who?

If the law is supposed to be situation, then it should be stated as such in the law itself when it applies and when it does not.

We're talking about laws, man, things that have the power to ruin lives, and you want to leave them vague and arbitrary?

People have the power to ruin lives, animals have the power to ruin lives, electricity, cars, power tools, fire, etc. You're surrounded by things that have the power to ruin lives, they're all arbitrary and apathetic as to whether they do it to you. Legalistic bureaucracy is an attempt to standardize life, to say that every such and such situation is the same so let's treat it the same. In reality, every situation is completely different and should never be treated the same. The standardization of life is the denial of life, it's the limiting of the infinitely beautiful and terrifying scope that life can and should take.

Zeus, I'd hate to live in whatever city-state you and your ilk found. Hobbesian almost, with its reliance on the powers-that-be to decide who to punish and when to punish them, rather than through the following an ethical and well-established law code.

Didn't answer the question. Who says that "laws should be situational more than anything."

The speech Plato puts in his mouth is a teaching exercise, we don't know what Socrates actually said at his trial, if anything.

You're making fun of that idea, but in Anglo and American tradition, Common Law and the ability for a judge to contextually interpret are one of the major pillars of our legal system.

The United Kingdom, for instance, doesn't even have a codified constitution, but rather a large amount of legislative precedence that they base their actions on.

One of the key tenants of his interpretation of philosophy was that death was nothing to fear. He was willing to completely suppress his appetitive desire to avoid pain and death, in favor of his rational principles of commitment to the law.

I.E. He had principles and was stubborn enough to die for them

A society in which people are responsible for making decisions as opposed to legal codes eliminates the ambiguity in who's guilty for making them. The state will always make poor decisions, barring utopia. A legalistic government obfuscates who is actually responsibly for those poor decisions. The legislature points to the executive, the executive points to the courts, the courts point to municipals, and around and around it goes. And at the end of the day, anybody can default to "well I was just following the laws we set up so-and-so centuries ago". There's no clear idea of who alive is physically to blame, and any hopes of actually holding those people responsible to create a better government are doused by 'putting faith in the system'. Just work within the laws that someone else decided and have faith that it'll go your way. And if it doesn't then oh well, that's how the system is designed.

Government should have a clear chain of responsibility. Someone alive should be taking account of the factors of the situation and be making the decision of how to go about it. And if they make the wrong decision, whether through ignorance of malevolence, they as an individual, as opposed to some abstract set of rules founded by someone long dead, can clearly be held accountable for their injustice. If the powers-that-be are not able to decide how to judge a situation, and those that are being judged are obviously not able to, then nobody is actually judging the situation and nobody is to blame. It's by definition inhuman and therefore alienating.

Why does it matter who says it, you should be judging ideas to determine their merit, not judging who proposes the ideas to determine their merit.

You don't necessarily have to fear death to recognize that avoiding it is preferential to embracing it. He embraced it and became nothing more than a martyr, a zealot incapable of finding further truth. A voluntary last stand is defeat, a denial of what more you could live and do.

philosophers are rhetorically clever and elementally stupid.

brainlets and virgins will never get this

kek shut the fuck up

t. lowest-tier of human who wants to be a philosopher

You can't be rhetorically clever and elementally stupid, it takes a certain level of elemental intelligence to have rhetorical cleverness. Not to say that there aren't many people who are elementally intelligent and rhetorically stupid.

I see your point but it's wrong because people who allow rhetoric to overpower general intelligence are maybe one step above serfs although they are often viewed as unique in some contrarian light with all the stupid shit they might say very beautifully. They're basically inverted serfs.

Could you explain what you mean with the whole serfs comparison? I'd see serfs as traditionally neither rhetorically intelligent or generally intelligent at all, the only power they have comes from their mass of numbers; quantity over quality in every category. The inversion of this would be someone who is both rhetorically and generally intelligent, which is what I'm suggesting of philosophers. What you're suggesting is that serfs are generally intelligent but rhetorically stupid?

>A voluntary last stand is defeat, a denial of what more you could live and do.

Even if to do so is to betray your values? To basically admit they are worth less than fear?

If Socrates' values forced him to sacrifice his life when a sacrifice of live could have been completely avoided, what does that say of his values? He had a choice between two options, one where no life is lost at all and one where he voluntarily loses his life, and his values led him to the latter.

So life is the ultimate value and mush be mainted no matter the sacrifice?

Sacrificing your life to make a philosophical point as a martyr is just a denial of life and ultimately self-defeating. The point of philosophy is to attempt to find truth, and martyrdom is an act committed by someone who has found the ultimate truth. It's not conducive to furthering philosophy and is an act entirely based on faith and faith alone. Socrates' martyrdom set the table for Christianity, liberalism, Marxism, and ultimately nihilism.

Well all serfs were rhetorically retarded by circumstance but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that there was a percentage similar to non-serfs who were intelligent but could only apply it in the limited areas they were allowed access to.

I'd imagine that a serf of sufficient general intelligence would be able to climb out of serfdom. Obviously the bar is set higher for a serf than say for an industrial worker, but it was still possible. If we're talking about the general type of person that was typical to the serfs, I don't think they'd be particularly intelligent in any sort of way.

So if faced with someone who wishes to do evil and there's a good chance I'll die if I stand up to them, I should simply go along with them for fear of my life?

You're assuming the general person is intelligent in any sort of way.
Anyway, I just found serfs to be the best example because they're all rhetorically stupid.

>Sacrificing your life to make a philosophical point as a martyr is just a denial of life and ultimately self-defeating.

This only follows from the assumption that life is more valuable than anything else. Is life more valuable than reason or virtue?

All things that exist may be divided into two categories: things in our control, and things not in our control. What is in our control? Our thoughts, opinions, principles and actions. What is not in our control? Everything else.

Those things not in our power are mere materials and means to be used by the things that are in our power.

Where then does good and evil lie? In our choices. What are the things independent of choice? Neither good nor evil, but indifferent.

We do not choose to come into life, nor do we choose to die. As life and death are not in our control, they are neither good nor evil, but are both indifferent.

Life, not being good in of itself, is clearly not the most valuable thing.

If good and evil lie in our choices, what then is the most valuable thing? Our rational faculty by which we make choices.

For what reason did Socrates die? To preserve his character as a man.

what is man?

A rational and mortal being.

Well: from what are we distinguished by reason?

From wild beasts.

From what else?

From sheep and the like.

Take care, then, to do nothing like a wild beast; otherwise you have destroyed the man; you have not fulfilled what your nature promises. Take care, too, to do nothing like cattle; for thus likewise the man is destroyed.

In what do we act like cattle?

When we act gluttonously, lewdly, rashly, sordidly, inconsiderately, into what are we sunk?

Into cattle.

What have we destroyed?

The rational being.

When we behave contentiously, injuriously, passionately, and violently, into what are we sunk?

Into wild beasts.

By all these means is destroyed what the nature of man promises. For when is a conjunctive proposition preserved?

When it fulfils what its nature promises.

So that the preservation of such a proposition consists in this, that its several parts are a conjunction of truths.

When is a disjunctive proposition preserved?

When it fulfils' what its nature promises.

When is a flute, a harp, a horse, or a dog preserved?

When each fulfils what its nature promises.

Where is the wonder, then, that man should be preserved and destroyed in the same manner? All are preserved and improved by operations correspondent to their several faculties; as a carpenter, by building; a grammarian, by grammar; but if he accustom himself to write ungrammatically, his art will necessarily be spoiled and destroyed. Thus modest actions preserve the modest man, and immodest ones destroy him; faithful actions, the faithful man, and the contrary destroy him.

Socrates life was destroyed in order that his humanity might be preserved.

Translation: he was a cuck who denied himself a few more years of fucking and getting drunk

You have now learned the dignity of the human being through knowledge, and what kind of knowledge it possesses. Only by this can you comprehend the greatness of which it is capable, that you may see how precious you are in yourself, and yet how vile and contemptible you make yourself by your own choice.

While death bows to no man, your life is entirely your own. You can choose to end your life at any point in time, or you can choose to extend it for as long as death allows. Socrates chose to end his life willingly. How can you place rational faculty as more valuable than life, would you have such faculty without life? Socrates ended his life and thereby destroyed his rational faculty, a fittingly irrational end for a man who valued rationalism so highly. There's nothing rational about martyrdom, it's the ultimate leap of faith, the ultimate denial of your life and the rational faculty it contains.

>your life is entirely your own

As I have shown, life itself is indifferent. How you choose to live it however is not.

>How can you place rational faculty as more valuable than life, would you have such faculty without life?

The fact that it is dependent on life does not mean that life is more valuable.

>Socrates ended his life and thereby destroyed his rational faculty

I argued that it was preserved, not destroyed. You simply state the contrary without making any argument at all.

>life itself is indifferent
Not all life at all times. Most life, certainly - but you are likely on the same page regarding it. Life responds to your shouts with an echo. This is what is often called Karma.
>The fact that it is dependent on life does not mean that life is more valuable.
If you can't ignore it, it is valuable. What that value is remains open, but it isn't something you can remain apathetic towards. You stop remaining, and your petty opinions are replaced and contrasted to the everlasting truth.

>While death bows to no man, your life is entirely your own.
Not true. Solipsism is a trade-off where you lose other people and many important things.
>You can choose to end your life at any point in time
You need to defeat your fear first. Weak people can't do this. Now, there are ways to cheat, as in drugs and long term sabotage of your own life (where it becomes the relatively positive option to the alternatives), but it isn't a boolean switch.

I see you favour the Loeb.

I did not say it was not valuable, I said it was not the most valuable.

Imagine a group of children stand playing a game with a ball. The ball is itself indifferent, the use of it is not.

Socrates' trial was just as if he had been playing at ball. And what was the ball he had to play with? Life, chains, exile, a draught of poison, separation from a wife, and the desertion of orphan children. These were what he had to play with; and yet, nevertheless, he did play, and threw the ball with address. Thus we should be careful how we play, but indifferent as to the ball itself. We are by all means to manage external materials with art; not taking them for ourselves, but showing our art about them, whatever they may happen to be. It is another who gives you food, and a property; and may take them away, and your paltry body too.

Nonetheless, we must work with the materials we receive. The materials are but a means to an end, not an end in of themselves. It is the end which is most valuable, not the means.

What if Socrates believed in life after death, the immortality of the soul? Plato puts those words in his mouth in the Republic, and so there's a chance that that's just Socrates-as-mouthpiece talking. But what if that was a genuine belief of Socrates'? What if he believed his spirit would live on after he was executed? It might explain his willingness to die.

He didn't give a fuck. Nigga was 70 years old and cared more about making philosophical points than anything else, so he made his point.

In the Apology he says he's doesn't know what to expect, which I'd take as more relevant than whatever he says in other dialogues.

Oh, I see. Then we have no quarrel.

You can by accident.

what series?

I recommend reading the Phaedo since he addresses this. For him when the body dies, the soul makes its way to the invisible, which like itself, is the divine and immortal and wise, and there it can be happy having left behind confusion, ignorance, fear, violent desires and other human wrongs. But I think it's one of the middle dialogues so it's likely that he's just using Socrates since Plato wasn't present at his death.

>As I have shown, life itself is indifferent. How you choose to live it however is not.
>As I have shown
But you haven't user, your entire premise is based on the idea that only things within your control can be valued (which frankly is an even more pants-on-head retarded assertion than what we're arguing about, but there's not point in opening that can of worms now) and that life is not within your control. Life is entire within your control, you can end it at any moment you please and you would be none-the-wise that you had ever lived in the first place, leaving aside things possibly exogenous to life itself. Life is not indifferent, your life is your own and you can cut it short at any point.

>The fact that it is dependent on life does not mean that life is more valuable.
It does by definition, you would not have A without B, therefore B is the some total of both A and B. There is no rational faculty without life, there is certainly life without rational faculty. Life holds the value of both the rational and irrational.

>I argued that it was preserved, not destroyed. You simply state the contrary without making any argument at all.
I did argue, you just seem to be having a reading comprehension problem here. What was Socrates after his death? Nothing, he was not rational, he was not irrational. Everything Socrates was and is gone. He willingly poisoned his rational faculty and they were no longer rational nor faculty, they were flesh then dirt. His mind, his body, everything he was, he threw away ended. Then people like you claim it was some kind of philosophical act. There was no philosophy in that act. Philosophy is the search for truth, and willingly killing yourself is permanently ending your search for truth.

>Not true. Solipsism is a trade-off where you lose other people and many important things.
Who's talking about solipsism here?

>You need to defeat your fear first. Weak people can't do this. Now, there are ways to cheat, as in drugs and long term sabotage of your own life (where it becomes the relatively positive option to the alternatives), but it isn't a boolean switch.
At some point in your life you had to defeat your fear to do everything, all the way back to infancy. That doesn't mean all of your actions are somehow outside of your control and valueless. Overcoming fear is at its root a choice.

but other people talked about Socrates, Xenophon was also a student of his, and Aristotle mentions Socrates' children.

>which frankly is an even more pants-on-head retarded assertion

I'm sorry, I had the mistaken impression that I was dealing with someone who valued what is good above all other things. Clearly that can't be taken for granted these days. Why don't you rationally explain how good or evil can exist outside of choice in inanimate objects or phenomena?

>Life is entire within your control

If life is entirely in your control then you can choose not to die. Not only can you take it when you please, but you can return it when you please also. Or do you perhaps have a different conception of what constitutes complete control?

>It does by definition, you would not have A without B

By that logic a ball in of itself is more valuable than the games it is used for, since without it the games could not be played.

>I did argue, you just seem to be having a reading comprehension problem here

You obviously have a different idea of what an argument consists in. An argument consists in a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. You made no argument, you just made a number of successive claims without attempting to substantiate them.

>What was Socrates after his death? Nothing, he was not rational, he was not irrational. Everything Socrates was and is gone.

You talk as if he would otherwise have lived forever. He was an old man at the end of his years. He was going to die anyhow - he could either die without compromising his principles, or he could die with compromising his principles.

>Everything Socrates was and is gone. He willingly poisoned his rational faculty and they were no longer rational nor faculty, they were flesh then dirt. His mind, his body, everything he was

This view is a doctrine called materialism. It is not an uncontested fact, and simply speaking as if it was does not make it so. It has been widely and thoroughly critiqued, not least by Socrates and Plato themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

>Philosophy is the search for truth

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Even the search for truth is alien to you, who evidently have no knowledge of the epistemological methodology set forth by Plato and attributed to Socrates, nor any inclination to try to understand their view. Instead you assume you have possession of the truth and that 'people like me' perceive things where there is nothing, because you perceive nothing yourself. Some search for truth that is.