Is his whole shtick literally just saying

Is his whole shtick literally just saying
>what did he mean by this?

in some of the earlier dialogues. later he gives whole monologues expressing definite and fleshed out opinions on a variety of matters

Don't know who that is and don't care.

why do you think that?

Why?

What is the purpose of this?

What is the meaning of purpose?

do you really not know?

How can anyone know anything? Can it be taught?

if one can not know anything why do you ask?

I honestly kind of gave up on the dialogues after Charmides. It's literally
>but how can we know that we know that we don't know what we know what we don't know that we know that unknowable
>ergo you should be my buttslave now

there is purpose defined by nature, and purpose made by man + nature, and then the arguments over what are good and bad purposes

He isn’t a philosopher, he’s an image-maker and a midwife. His images hold the real value of Plato’s work. I can’t be in-depth here, but don’t give up on them. Fall asleep to YouTube audiobooks of the dialogues, it’s painless. After your third time through all of them there will not be a set of documents more valuable to you than Plato’s collected works.

Socrates is trying to arrive at a definition, a specific exact one which satisfies various conditions. If you are wise in something, he supposes, you should be able to define it along these lines. So he questions those who claim to be wise in these things, only to discover they can't arrive at a definition and therefore must not be wise in the thing. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this is zero sum, studying the dialogues teaches a lot about argumentation, and even if they give up on giving a definition they still examine what a thing is not, which is the next best thing.

Also I should note this is more true of the earlier dialogues. As they progress he increasingly becomes more of a mouthpiece for Plato.

Cool, but isn't asking "what is temperance" the same as asking "what is apple"? Going by Socrates, we couldn't define an apple, it's round and sweet, but so are dozens of other fruits. Its a meaningless language game that leads to nowhere. We know what temperance is, and are apples, it's shared knowledge of all humanity. Ironically, the dialogues complains that the 'science of sciences' would have no practical use, while engaging in the same sort of empty arguing for the sake of it.

>We know what temperance is, and are apples
in a socratic seminar. The purpose is to find out 'your' truth. Not the hive mind your presupposing exists. It is not to educate one another, but to have a set of beliefs, to reflect and become wise. To assume we all share the same views or understandings, is naiive.

That and being a typical reactionary aristocrat

socrate's forms of government are progressive

>wants to execute low caste babies and hypocondriats
>progressive

>We know what temperance is, and are apples
I'm not an apple.

that not his forms of government.

The definitions thing is a critique of the sophists. Definitions were the sophists’ primary topic of conversation, so Socrates succeeds at making sophists look bad by failing to find definitions

>Peterson becomes the foremost modern philosopher while declaring that man should live as the lobsters do

>Socrates, greatest of the ancients, was literally half-lobster / half-man

Makes you think (deeply)

My favorite part of the Republic is when he advocates for a rigged reproductive lottery where the most fit and capable men always """coincidentally""" win the lottery and get to sleep with all the women.

He's the Greeks.

What do you mean by progressive?

have fun getting deported from the land of the western civilization pajeet

...

fucking newfag platonists LEAVE

but when one strives to argue for what is good and bad purposes: where do their arguments come from: what can their arguements possibly be based on to make them valid? Valid in terms of and to what? Is there objectively true good and bad purposes (yes, defined by the law...is the totality of the law objectively valid...based on what?) If God said: purpose x is bad...what it be true?

neato

He exposed that anyone who claims to know something or follows any kind of ideology is really just a pseud

>claiming to know what he was saying
pseud confirmed

>a swagger so intimidating that enemy soldiers kept their distance.

Uberchad

Oh fuck this got me

do you reckon he slayed?

yaaassssss

Is the Socratic Swagger as good as the Goethe Stride?

Who is this semen slurping soy suckler? Some kind of reddit youtuber with a reddit beard? Don't answer either of those questions, I DO NOT give a fuck.

>The Socratic Methojd is modern day Veeky Forums shitpost dialectic.

I don't even

>tfw you his points on censorship

prime bait