Socrates propagates a sterile, not thought through philosophy, that really...

>I know nothing; frankly, is beyond silly of him.
Oh, I see the problem. You're too shallow to feel philosophical problems.

No dude, Nietzsche pretty much said as much, but instead of stopping there, he realized where this thought process leads: nihilism. And realized he needed to figure out some type of solution to counteract the implications he advocated. He strove for Some way to affirm life.

Socrates didn't think through his philosophy
He contributed deduction, but thats it
Not as smart as he and everyone thinks
Leaves the reader in a nihilist void
Nietzsche rights his wrong, by attempting to affirm life
Socrates is a bitch

>Nietzsche rights his wrong, by attempting to affirm life
it wasnt life socrates was inaffirming, it was faulty thinking

Socrates is the equivalent of a militant know-nothing high school atheist, while Nietzsche is the refined PHd agnostic attempting to actually solve the obvious dilemmas of life. Socrates wallows and is content with just looking smart. Nietzsche doesn't need validation, he knows he's smart and is attempting to overcome the oh so difficult dilemmas of life

So a Peterson/Nietzsche teen can't even fucking read socratic dialogues? I'm shocked

He said, to be alive is to be a long time sick. His honorable state-enforced suicide reads more like a death wish granted

>uses /pol/ frat bro image
>talks like a teenager
>claims to understand deductive reason but hasn’t read the dialogues and doesn’t understand why all knowledge is empty
>Neechee affirm life

Nietzche had the leg up on being born over 2000 years later dont ye think? How is it not something to compel and urge and take part in showing how poorly your countrymen think and know about what they think and know, how does that not get the noggin joggin in the right direction? Unless of course one is satisfied with knowing falseness and rubishry. When socarates said 'all I know is I know nothing', was there anyone to have a dialogue with him about that, anyone that questioned that statement, are you certain that was so much a defining philosophical certainty of his, and not smdh sigh , for certainly someone could have said 'socrates do you not know letters and words that you use, and do you not know how to speak, and do you not think you know the intentions of the meaning of those words?'

>He said, to be alive is to be a long time sick.
what was the context? In relation to the absence of knowing, or feeling, of worrying, of struggling, of grappling with mystery, of relating to powers?

Also as much as socrates really existed, Plato likely exaggerated him and used his personage as an archetype of the extremity of perfect pure absolute questioning: which then plato uses other people and himself, to offer solutions, build ups, theories, ideas, to fill the void Socarates questions leave: Socrates show how all the people think they know things but are faulty, leaving room open to change things, possibly, strivingly, theoretizingly, for the better, First, Socrates, questions, take down what is faulty, so that more questions and the attempts at the most expansive all encompassing answers can be built in their place.

Mr. Big Brains. I understand knowledge is empty--so far; however, that is irrelevant to my point! Just because we can't know anything does not mean life is meaningless, as Socrates implies, and Nietzsche attempts to resolve

No, I haven't read the dialogs--are they that good? I've only read The Republic

How do I write like a teenager? I get my word usage is sloppy, but look at those fine colons and semi-colons. Exhilarating!

I conceded that Socrates improved our reasoning and deduction skills, however, he provided the framework for nihilism without any philosophy that affirmins life. He didn't think through his own philosophy, and while Nietzsche definitely had the benefit of learning from him, Socrates still had his own life to affirm, and didnt--as far as I can tell. He just devitalized everyone

ok, well as you might read here
it is not really worthy to think of socrates as a person with a philosophy begging others to believe and follow, but more so a tool of Platos to balance and showcase all the other ideas after dismantling the preexiting ideas of the day he does: in other words, dont think of socrates as apart from or separate from the totality of Platos work and ideas

Other than The Republic, what would you recommend by Plato? Does he ever give a philosophy as to why we should want to live?

>Does he ever give a philosophy as to why we should want to live?
lel...

>Does he ever give a philosophy as to why we should want to live?
this is presupposed in his making the effort to write at all

>Does he ever give a philosophy as to why we should want to live?
read the symposium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dialogues_of_Plato

Isn't the allegory of the cave reason itself for wanting to live?

Platos like: Look at how this idiot can make everyone seem like an idiot... we need to reconsider some things about civilization

ITT:
pseuds coming at the king

So why does someone who wants to kill themselves, go to the effort of killing others first?
Same idea you brainlet

malevolence is a disease of the mind

Will do
Explain please

I should have added: and the topics he writes about: shows the most incredible interest in life, the world, humanity, living, and living well.

I'm at work and don't have the book in front of me, so you'll have to help.
The prisoner upon seeing true things ran back to the cave to tell others right?
Why?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic
"In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict"

"Eristic was a type of "question-and-answer"[3] teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysodoros. Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".[4]

Plato contrasted this type of argument with dialectic and other more reasonable and logical methods (e.g., at Republic 454a). In the dialogue Euthydemus, Plato satirizes eristic. It is more than persuasion, and it is more than discourse. It is a combination that wins an argument without regard to truth. Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position.[5]

Unlike Plato, Isocrates (often considered a Sophist) did not distinguish eristic from dialectic.[6] He held that both lacked a "'useful application' ... that created responsible citizens",[7] which unscrupulous teachers used for "enriching themselves at the expense of the youth."[8]"

youtube.com/watch?v=7jYRlN1OayA

when you hear eryximachus and alcibiades voices

is that the indian? I almost throw my computer and up

>"did not constitute a method of argument"
>not an argument

eryximachus is voiced by an Indian here yes lol

meant for

Socrates: "Could you explain why you believe X?"
Believer-in-X: "I believe in X because A."
Socrates: "But, if you think about it, A isn't really a good reason to believe X."

The value of this exchange is not that it defeats belief X. The value is that it opens up beliefs other than X. Socrates' discussions surrounding piety, justice, beauty, etc. aren't (merely) about negating particular definitions; the negation is only a first step towards recognizing that there are other possibilities.

In the same way, so-called "pomo" philosophy interrogates our feelings not to invalidate them, or tell us that we shouldn't feel, but to open us up to the breadth of possible feelings.

This insight isn't particular to Socrates and the "pomo" authors, either. Even Nietzsche, arguably the most life-affirming philosopher of all time, recognized that critique is important. A solid two-thirds of Thus Spake Zarathustra is criticisms of other value systems, and Zarathustra's own value system is called into question by the tone and structure of the text. Nietzsche doesn't give readers concrete answers — he only tells them that they have to develop their own ways of coping with suffering, and, through suffering, living.

All the best philosophy is destructive, because it's only after destruction that we see how many possibilities there really are.

Would you rather have false conviction or true assessment of lack of knowledge? You can point out why things are wrong without having a readymade explaination to fit in its place. This is considered progress in science.

And when did it become philosophy’s job to “affirm life” anyway? What’s intrinsically wrong with “providing a framework for nihilism,” as you say he did? If you don’t like nihilism, just argue against nihilism on it’s own terms

My mate, Socrates is an incredibly life-affirming philosopher and a true hero by virtually any standard. He loved life, carried on close relationships with both friends and romantic partners, maintained popularity with several of the most important thinkers of the day, and as a soldier risked his life to save those he cared about. His sole interest in life was learning how to be good, what being good means, and how he could help other people to be good too.

He only wanted people to live the good life, and that's the aim of his philosophy. Read the Symposium, the Phaedrus, the Phaedo, and even the Euthyphro. You'll see a portrait of a genuinely tender and fun man who did more to advance philosophical discourse than any other in history.

For the purposes of my point, I'm conflating Plato and Socrates, as there really is no way of separating them.

I think Plato hints at creating a lot of the socrates content, because the beginning of this the symposium has to be seen as absurdist humor, asking the guy to retale what happened at the dinner, and then in perfect memory without error retell each speech and observation and occurrence: hinting at...what, was Plato at these dialogues of socrates with pen and pad jotting as fast as he could each perfectly stated word of their discussion?

did plato get their permission to use their speech in his literature, or would they have been honored to have been a part of such prestigious history? Or if they came forward and asked for their content to be removed he would have done it? Or they might have seen it as free advertising? Or if Plato received proceeds he might have given them whatever fraction of fraction of fractioned fractions fractions their contribution would have equaled in quantity and quality?

I don't think you understand even remotely what life was like for them.

I'll have to check out the symposium
In the Republic he is the equivalent of a cult leader who tells everyone to suicide. At least he does it too though, props on that accord
True assessment, but at least Inot The Republic he never addresses the implications of his philosophy; however, I am being told he does this is Symosium, so....we will see

I hate auto correct so much.
*in the Republic
*in symposium

Interesting, thanks
I have nothing wrong with criticizing others' beliefs, I'm just saying Theramacyus was right about Socrates, it's lame to just critique others, and not assert anything yourself.

Also, Pomo does tell us we shouldn't feel racism or whatever, and they use Pomo to deconstruct the implications of our beliefs, so that we can no longer be ruled by them, though, some might say it is inevitable, and merely recognizing them is important

Look at The Republic Book Seven 516-517
Socrates insists on returning to the community after seeing true forms. Socrates asks if you yourself saw the real forms would you return back to the community.
That right there is a reason Socrates gives for life. To free your fellow men from the cave and show them the real forms.

So we can suicide as 1

>Pomo does tell us we shouldn't feel racism or whatever . . .
Source?
>and they
Who?
>use Pomo to deconstruct the implications of our beliefs
By "deconstruct," do you mean "better understand" or "invalidate"? Because only the first really applies.
>so that we can no longer be ruled by them
If you want to be ruled by anything, you shouldn't be quoting Nietzsche. And regardless of whether or not you want to be ruled by your beliefs, you're still allowed to have beliefs. You just have to understand their limits.
>though, some might say it is inevitable, and merely recognizing them is important
Exactly. All any of this destructive philosophy does is tell you, "Hey, you don't have it all figured out." That's not an argument for nihilism, or any other belief system. It's just a reminder that you need to think a little harder.

>Socrates
>why we believe what we believe
Literally actually read Plato then come back.

>popular culture, though I suppose you will say they hijacked the movement. Derrida possibly

>the forder, but the latter might apply if^

>I don't want to be ruled by anything, ya, but beliefs are discouraged because theyes stem from conditioning
I literally hav3. What am I missing?

>Socrates propagates a sterile, not thought through philosophy

Socrates doesn't propagate any particular philosophy - the dialogues are only intended to articulate an epistemic methodology. It just went straight over your head.

Plato never set his philosophy in writing. He said in his seventh letter that no serious person would ever attempt to teach serious philosophic doctrines in a book or to the public at large.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter

Zhuang Zhu said the very same thing.

I conceded in the op basically
>epistemic methodology
When I wrote
>I appreciate his contributions to deductive reasoning
Also, somewhere else when I said
>his methodology was important for the development of philosophy

So, I understand that just fine actually; however,
I disagree that is all he does. Though, people are saying to read Symposium, so...I guess I need to do that