Is there anyone who could have convinced him to not take the hemlock? how?

k
But he was so full of shit, for instance with the squares in Meno, he proves nothing. If you are a literal slave, and some supposedly smart guy asks you a bunch of leading questions, of course you are going to agree, Socrates didn't prove that the kid "learned", or "recollected" anything only that he knows how to submit to authority. He wouldn't be able to use his new "knowledge" of geometry in any real way he didn't unlock anything which would allow him to solve a problem, Socrates just proved that Socrates knows geometry. Dude was a fucking hack.

>Is there anyone who could have convinced him to not take the hemlock?

>Implying he didn't want to die

His Daimon, because his Daimon opposed him whenever he was doing anything wrong.

/thread

jesus

Crito is he did a better job at fucking speaking. He completely dropped the ball in saying that he owed people something privately and he let Socrates just keep talking about owing a debt to the city.

but crito was dumb, their talk was invented by plato

It was all invented by Plato, see this post for further proof

and plato was invented by aristotle

And Aristotle was invented by Aquinas.

This. You need a fictional character to persuade a fictional character.

*tips*

and you were invented by me

Good fedora meme, friend. Well meme'd.

lots of really good pussy

What would Socrates have thought about Jesus?

maybe if they had convinced him he wasn't committing the crime of tainting the youth with sophistry or whatever. he wasn't even real anyway.

probably God himself

He had plenty of sweet boy-pussy user

He gave it all up because he believed in his convictions THAT much

Well, Socrates felt obligated to take the poison because he was sentenced to death by the state of Athens, and he felt that he was bound to their decision because of the social contract that exists between the state and her citizens.

However it is pretty well known, and was even in his own time, that Socrates was not very well liked and the trial was basically bullshit (he was charged with "corrupting the youth of Athens" under pretty shady pretenses) and one could argue that, by allowing Socrates to be sentenced to death under such circumstances, the state was not acting in his best interests and therefore invalidated the social contract themselves.

Maybe one could point out to him that if the state of Athens has already broken the social contract then Socrates is not obligated to fulfill his role as a dutiful citizen willing accepting the consequences of her judicious prejudice.

That other guy was right though he was an asshole so it probably wouldn't matter anyways

I feel like when I was being taught the dialogue that regardless of the circumstances surrounding his death, him escaping would've erased the validity and integrity of his life and teachings in the eyes of the public

[1/2]
>"I can't leave bro. I will look like a hypocrite seeing how I didn't object to all the services the State provided for me while as growing up and I will look greedy if I started doing it now"

Your were a youth Socrates, and were forced / coerced to get an education as a citizen without much of a choice. Now you're a big boy and are supposed to use it whenever people jeopardize your community. When ill-guided hoi polloi and youth are influenced by the sophist, and they lead them to a dangerous harm, not only should you examine them but avoid unjust persecution when possible. Don't you argue for objective justice existing anyway? How could you submit to a State that you know is doing wrong and injustice, instead of resisting and showing that isn't right. Because of some social contract between you and the state and that could lead to the State no longer functioning if everyone did that? Well, what is the function of the State? To keep this short, shouldn't it be to form laws and conventions to a populace to regulate their life towards lawfulness and to inquire more knowledge (which is essentially virtue itself).
How are laws based then? Aren't they always our distorted images and theories of true justice, those of which are closer to the real form than others? And if knowledge is just the soul recollecting objective outer-physical thoughts, isn't it possible for one to know they're closer to the truth than further away from it? Following so, if you examine your and your accusers actions, can't you see your accusers are wrong here with exercising proper justice? And when one sees those claiming what they're doing as "justice" when it is really injustice, shouldn't one object to them and not abide by their newly crafted rules? If-so, wouldn't it be right for someone like you to flee your captivity as being your objection?

>but I agree with their laws all my life
Their "laws" are just rules that abide by conventional earthly interest. True laws are divinely inspire to lead to true justice, and aren't those crafted by men by accumulated in comprehension of them.

[2/2]
>and what? Flee to a foreign land and have my kids and wife live among foreigners who they don't know and get judged and hated by them for me being the guy who did damage to my old state?
How others perceive and treat you is ultimately irrelevant if you're following justice. Your kids and wife could theoretically experience a bunch of other evil or tragic things in their life and a lot of those they can't stop, so they should embrace their mortal-status and limits and stride on to pursuing justice and knowledge.

>"but leaving would or could destroy the State in some-way, which is inherently injustice"
If justice lies with the people who make the rules, why didn't approve of Alcibiades going into political life and continuing to live a life of debauchery in his private one? He could've (and later did) become prominent enough to persuade the assembly to vote on a lot of measures for his own interest. If the assembly voted on a measure that promoted Alcibiades lifestyle and made it law illegal to criticize it, should you still object to his lifestyle under the new law or ignore it? If a man is raised in a cave his whole life, and is forced to obey by all laws created by others in the cave; and the only images they have of the outside is just ones created out of distoration of shadows of things passing by the main source of light that goes into the cave, which the rest of the people of the cave unanimously agree upon that no one should judge or perceive said images in anyway different than they appear to them in the cave or to leave the cave and explore what those images are, would that man be 'unjust' if he left the cave and saw the true objects that created said images, and went back and told everyone the truth despite the law? Should he just allow himself to get punished instead of fleeing to a life outside that sees the truth?

Underrated post

But no, OP. Socrates was ultimately a slave to an ideology of his own invention. Nothing short of an existential crisis would have prevented his suicide.

There was actually no indication that Socrates ever committed homosexual acts, aside from the anachronistic idea that all the Greeks were "totes gay, lol"

(me again)
I realize I ain't done and got more ammo for this old fart:

So, Socrates, regardless if the laws of the city are correct or not, not abiding them is harming them, correct?
>Yes.
And harming them and doing further damage to them isn't 'just'?
>Yes
So is what is considered 'just', is just really the opposite of harming the State and it's laws? As in (I assume): benefiting it?
>It might
And benefiting the State is a good thing
>yes
Is whatever benefits and helps a State, always a good thing though?
>I don't understand
Surely many consider that, for example, if someone in the State implemented a successful economic policy that resulted in every citizen becoming prosperous and wealthy because of it, and have it considered by the leaders and all the citizens to be beneficial to them and the State; but unknown to many of them, the increase and excessive wealth they just obtained is making them decadent and reliant on luxuries and is making them weak in character, would the truth of whether or not it's beneficial, then lie with what people say it is? Or is the judge of the truth of it beyond accessible to what they think and lies in it's own true outer-perceptible form.
>I would believe so for the latter
So the people and leaders of the State don't always know what's really beneficial for them?
>No
And if they don't know what's always truly beneficial for them, wouldn't it possible they wouldn't know what's truly harmful to them, like the above?
>I guess so.
Are the specific laws and legal in every-state crafted in objective truth for justice, or is there flaws in most,if not, all of them?
>I'm not sure
While surely you would agree some laws and proposals for laws are better than others!
>Sure.
Then not all laws are objectively true or beneficial, as there's a ideal, or, at-least: a closer ideal way of crafting and implementing them. Meaning there's less "ideal" ways.
>Yes
And if human laws aren't always the embodiment of the truth and being beneficial to the State, nor are they always drafted that way, how could one do what's perceived as harm to the State if the State can be mislead on what "harm" and the "beneficial" really are?

fantastic job

Pretty good job at putting into words what I was thinking for some time.

When I read The Last Days of Socrates, there was always something about Socrates that struck me as a little off. He had an inescapable of pride, or even vanity, about him.

Nonetheless, I still admire Socrates. I heard one of his favourite quips through Nietzsche: Someone called him a 'monstrum', to which he responded, "You know me, sir!"

I often ponder the way in which he said that, or if there is even more than one way to say it in Ancient Greek. In English, you could say:

>"You know me, sir!"

Quickly and with an air of surprise, as if pleased to find that someone does actually know him. Or else more like:

"You know me, sir..."

Slower and with an air of sarcasm, as if to imply that the guy doesn't really know him at all. I wonder which Socrates might have been aiming for.

But when the daimon plots against a man,
He first inflicts some hurt upon his mind.

He was old and set in what was probably a very comfy lifestyle to him. Pestering the nobles on the streets of Athens with his bullshit, having a laugh at their expense with a cult of gullible fuckbois hanging on his every word, offering him food and pleasure more desirable than what he'd gotten at home.
He probably judged that drinking the hemlock would be preferable to having to suffer what would very likely be an uncomfortable exile with a wife and kids he cared nothing about.

I would've said "anyone who's a pussy drink hemlock" or something like that so he's forced to not drink it otherwise be called a pussy.

You don't even need to go that far, he was an old fuck so deciding to die for a reason might just seem decent enough a way to go

Superman. He would swoop down and give Socrates and his captures a stern talking to.
Then, Socrates's daimōn would compel Socrates to confound Supe's with a riddle, but Superman, using his super-logic and X-ray vision, would detect the foreign corrupter and banish it to the phantom zone. With the day saved, Superman would fly back trough time and space back to Silver Age Metropolis, Socrates would spend the reminder of his golden years taking better care of his family, and Xenophon and Plato would focus all their creative energies on writing capeshit.

The discussion in this thread is so dumb that it actually convinced me to stop browsing Veeky Forums for today and actually read something. Thanks guys.

Okay, do people here seriously think that Socrates from Platonic dialogues was anything like Socrates IRL?

I don't think a daimon can make a first appearance even as a salvation without inflicting hurt upon the mind.

orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/the-argument-from-truth/

>planets are being pulled through space
>all life on the planet freezes to death within 7 minutes
nice job asshole

That his subject was a slave boy is irrelevant to the story. That example could be done on anyone, it would have been better if in the story it had been some dignitary or something to prevent people like you from saying the boy was just submitting to authority. It doesn't matter if he couldn't use his knowledge of the diagonals of a square, what matters is that HE NOW HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE LENGTHS OF THE DIAGONALS IN A SQUARE