Why did Socrates act like such an asshole at his trial?

They don't have anything better to do so they can afford to jump on any new post and slather their crap onto it. It just pollutes the whole thread.

>defending Islam

time you left for /leftypol/ or tumblr, sweety

Why did Plato write his ideas through a character like him and not through himself?

all of those were based answers, what the fuck is this post

its called literary talent

>what was wrong with this guy?
He was guilty of innocence

They should have killed Plato instead desu

Maybe it's Veeky Forums and you're in denial

Stop trying to project your own modern attitude onto 2000 year old philosophers.

>hurr socrates was an asshole

Obviously the post is a troll but I don't really agree with the idea that Socrates was unassailable in his logic.

On the thing about gods Socrates was either misleading the judges or just playing it coy for no reason. He basically tries to set up a chain of logic whereby he will be interpreted as believing in the gods without him having to say so. So either: 1. He actually believes in the gods but won't say so, which is just dumb because saying so would get him off the hook and still not violate his conscience. 2. He doesn't believe in the gods. This meas that he's attempting to mislead the judges which doesn't really gel with his "follow your conscience" schtick. Also if his own logic were ironclad here and he really did not believe in the gods then he's kind of a crap philosopher because he is consciously living with internal contradictions. None of these possibilities are great for Socrates.

There was another part of the trial where Socrates basically says that he shouldn't be convicted because he didn't do any harm intentionally, only unintentionally. This isn't necessarily untrue but it's a bad argument for the court because Greece didn't really go for this mens rea stuff.

Why did Hitler act like such an asshole at Nurenberg trial?

yes I have seen evidence he was tried there, he was wearing a disguise

source: Vatican Library Archive S-2546THW55

before he went to Argentina

home of the true white master-race

Its strange that I can tell that you've apparently read it.

And yet misinterpreted the entire thing.

the original shit-poster

What was most revealing from this is how much of a shitty father Socrates was. He chose "principles" over his THREE kids, two of them being small children. He left poor Xanthippe all alone to raise the children, who never got to know their father, by herself. Aristotle remarks of how unremarkable Socrates' children turned out being. Well I wonder why? Kids need a father. Socrates was a nigger.

Official worst thread and first post on Veeky Forums in all the years I've been here, someone please cap this

Nice dubs, user.

cap it yourself, you dumb weirdo

do you not have snipping tool like the rest of us?

this is interesting. also, i always take socrates like a hard mode sophist.
the best in the game. not really serious with himself. muh, virtue everywhere.
like somebody put in one post. they should tell him why he is incapable of corrupting the youth. and his contrarian spirit will search a good argument to tell you his evilness behind.

He had autism

It is a good thing to stand by your convictions even if they cause you harm? That's something I think Socrates pondered as he awaited and performed at his trial, and one of the reasons I hold him in high regard.

In the way he argued, along with his refusal to run away from his sentence and decision to drink the hemlock, he demonstrated that dying was better than giving up one's beliefs if they are founded in logic.

That's what I've always thought about it at least.

This. OP is the real douche in all of his ignorance and cowardice.

>If he had just said he was sorry he might still be alive.

I suggest reading it again since you clearly didn't understand shit.

What the fuck has been going on here? I keep seeing threads pop up about Socrates, especially, and Dostoyevsky lately where whoever the fuck is reading it clearly doesn't understand it at all.

This

Socrates knew that if he gave up everything he had worked for he would never be taken seriously again. He would always be Socrates the Hypocrite, Socrates the Eunuch, Socrates the Fool.

Yeah but now he's Socrates the deadbeat Dad. Family first, folks.

No, he taught his family and his pupils an important lesson of standing up for what you believe in.

It's called the Apo-logion
>which literally means back-talk
>and opie was expecting an apology...

people are starting with the greeks

they don't know the true axiom: start with a developed and open mind

>Remember kids, sometimes you have to take a stand and stick to the thing you believe in until the day you die.
>Good luck with this crazy fucking planet, I'm going on to the great hereafter. Tell your mom goodbye

>deadbeat
he was past his 70s

What's your point? Other than the fact that you're nothing more than a rat.

>Socrates was guilty of no crime
Corrupting the youth and atheism. Yes he was. You may disagree with the laws he was convicted of breaking, but he broke them and he was rightly convicted. He would've received leniency, however, if he hadn't acted like a dickhead determined to get the death penalty, but he exposed the hypocrisy of the state in so doing.

It was a joke dawg

>start with a developed and open mind
Well, that instantly negates most of Veeky Forums

Sorry, I figured you were OP

Would you tell that to his THREE children? He was selfish, caring more about his legacy than the actual experience of raising and being there for his kids. He was so sanctimonious about the purity of his philosophizing that he literally left nothing for his wife and children to inherit. Gorgias' and Protogoras' kids probably had the nicest clothes in Athens while Socrates' were most likely walking around the agora in drab, hole-ridden rags. Probably bullied because of it too. Poor Xanthippe, she deserved so much better.

Nah, there have always been and always will be cucks like you to step in and play the role of the step-dad, never quite filling a real man's shoes.

If those kids didn't grow up realizing the importance of their father's work they deserve to be destitute.

I bet you are one of those types of people who cannot understand why Jesus would give himself to the cross either.

>dying for your "convictions"
WHO YA GONNA CALL?

stirner posting needs to stop

>MFW Stirner renounces his entire philosophy because when faced with death, he realizes his whole life was a spook

So being a real man is putting your ego before your family? Are you black?

Are you heartless? They didn't chose to be born to some self-righteous hobo who spent his time playing semantic word games with the good, hardworking folk of Athens instead of getting a job and supporting his family.

JC didn't have any kids.

>not having convictions because some German faggot told you to be true to "your" "ego" which excludes belief systems for some reason

>Poor Xanthippe, she deserved so much better.
fuck off roasty

These thoughts belong on /adv/ or /r9k/. It is such obvious trolling that only a truly retarded person could believe what you have written.

>JC didn't have any kids.
LOL

Who cares? It wasn't your family and even his widow probably would have spit on you for being such a coward.

>real masculinity is providing for your children
Protip: they're not yours

Stop picking on him, his dad went out for milk and smokes when he was only 3 years old and never returned and now here he is taking his anger out on Socrates.

>for some reason
Not read Stirner. Probably not even read the Apology. Fuck off back to whichever shithole board you came from, dumb cunt.

Not who you replied to, but you Stirner posters, like you, have done enough to make me not ever want to waste my time on anything he wrote.

Abloo bloo bloo.

>excludes belief systems for some reason
>for some reason
>reason
^This is exactly why they exclude belief systems.

>reason is a spook
>look I can meme like max!

This whole thread is a disgrace. OP makes an obvious troll thread about Socrates and suddenly people are arguing about Stirner and giving "put grandpa in the nursing home already, mom"-tier rants about how blacks have no "family" values.

Socrates didn't die for this shit.

>My "reasoning" has lead me to believe that everything is out of my control and nothing happens for any discernible or rational reason
I sure do love zealots

I just want Stirner posters to go and stop shitting up every thread

Reason is a tool to be used to further our self-interest - to become the property of the ego. If reason is elevated above the ego, above self-interest, as its own good to which we are to subordinate our egos, our self-interest, it becomes a spook, yes.

>look I can meme like max!
You can try, mon frere, but you're too idiotic.

I love the dichotomies that some of you guys seem to build inside of your heads.

RE: Socratic atheism, part of the reason for him to downplay it, get a conviction based on the temporary disgust of the many, and allow himself to remain in Athens to be executed, was to protect philosophy as an activity from the hostility of political life, being an activity with a precarious existence. But more on that later.

With respect to his belief or lack thereof in the gods, we have plenty of peculiarities, not just in the quote unquote early dialogues, but up to the Republic and Symposium. What would have to be clarified first, however, is what the ancient view of atheism was in contrast with how we take it largely today, which is a lack of belief in gods, usually explained as the literal meaning of the word atheist itself (lit. "without-god/s"). The ancient view is summarized in the accusation put against Socrates: "...Socrates does injustice...by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes..." (24b-c)

Belief in the city's gods was thoroughly political, since the city's authority was thought to be established by gods, with the ancestral laws themselves being handed down by gods, let alone the understanding of justice and injustice tied up with such theology. What should be understood carefully here is the occasional Socratic claim about his belief in some god or deity, and the astounding neutrality of those passages whenever they appear in the dialogues. What such deity might be, sometimes is seems to be one of the forms (as the Idea of the Good manifests itself in the Republic), but this would be little different than to say that the big bang is a god. Ontological principles are sketchy things to call gods, and are evidently distinct from the civic deities in not being interested in individual fates. The claim made by Socrates is often that his god is eternal and unchanging and good, which need not be a willful deity.

Now, Socrates in the Apology does hedge quite a bit; the important passages about what the oracle said of him and his testing of it comes alongside a claim to be worshipping Apollo. Of course, what's evidently strange about this is his admitted attempt to refute the oracle, which already looks atheistic.

(cont.)

No i don't

nice dubs btw,

There are other passages in dialogues suggesting this ambivalent or heterodox approach to the gods, such as in the Euthyphro, wherein the famous "Euthyphro's Dilemma" is itself actually an appeal to the Forms over the gods (because if the Pious is such because the gods love it, it is unintelligible and chaotic nothingness, and if it is loved by the gods because it is Pious, then it must be some Form, in which case, fuck the gods, we can worship and model ourselves after the Forms directly). In the Symposium, we have another instance of Socratic atheism in his outrageous claim that Eros is not a god (and that we should understand this to be outrageous is indicated by that dialogue's many dramatic relationships with the crime of blasphemy leveled at several of the people present before the start of Athen's Sicilian expedition.). What's more, he claims that Eros is instead a daimon, which leads to the next matter to consider.

The Socratic daimon on display in the dialogue is the same as his philosophical Eros. Socrates on several occasions claims to be an expert in the erotic arts (he makes such claims definitely in the Symposium, Phaedrus, and Theages; if my memory is correct, I think he claims such at the beginning of the Lysis as well.) The erotic arts are discussed in detail in both the Symposium and Phaedrus, but especially in connection with what is "daimonic" in the former dialogue. A more direct connection can be found in the Theages, wherein he speaks about both topics, his expertise in erotics, and his daimon, side-by-side, suggesting the relation between them. So Plato seems to give us reason in his other dialogues to suspect that the daimon spoken of in the Apology is the same expertise in erotics spoken of elsewhere.

We have a further peculiarity in the Apology with respect to how belief in the gods is spoken of; Socrates, throughout the vast majority of the dialogue uses the verb "nomizein" to discuss belief in the gods, and this verb is related to the word for custom/law, "nomos", and so this term suggests belief that is in accordance with law/custom. In the middle of his back-and-forth with Meletus, he suddenly uses another term for belief when they argue over Socratic atheism, "hegeomai" (which can also mean to lead and rule). Suddenly, after a large cluster of uses of "nomizein", "hegeomai" shows up and "nomizein" disappears almost completely. I'm not sure what a clearer account of the meaning of this is, but it does seem to indicate additional Socratic peculiarities with respect to his view of the gods.

(cont.)

The sad thing is that at least some of you actually believe Stirner, beyond just using him to meme and memeing to justify your memes

Can you prove that your belief system is any more rational than the Stirner ideal?

If you could, why haven't you posted a single thing that actually argued for it?

So, why does he seem to dissemble on the subject of the gods? I think a clear sign can be seen in how many arguments have been had (in scholarship, between philosophers, between theologians, and even among members of this board) over whether or not Socrates was an atheist at all; Socrates, as per the charge put against him, was in all likelihood guilty of the charge of atheism, but his dissembling has since given the deep and abiding impression that he wasn't an atheist, and what's more, that neither were the many philosophers working within the mold of philosophizing that he had fashioned (such as Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle, let alone their many students). The Socratic apology for himself is an abject failure, in part because he was arguably more occupied with making an apology on behalf of philosophy that would vindicate the latter after the former's death, protecting the activity that he was persuaded was the only life worth living. His bad arguments about his beliefs persuaded the citizens that philosophizing wasn't the threat to the city that they had thought it was, nor that it was corrupting to the youth (youths like Critias, Charmides, and Alcibiades, all Socratic associates who somehow became monstrous through Socratic skepticism).

Agreed. I think if Stirner had used any word other than "spook" (or it was translated differently) to describe his ideas we wouldn't even be a known name. As it is the texts sound funny and that was the foothold for people to use him as the ultimate iconoclast. Just because he think all other philosophers are crap doesn't mean your philosophy is actually good.

Also, it'd be forgivable as a meme if it were still funny, which it's not. It's too old and too overused to have any punch of surprise or novelty anymore.

Stirner posting is the bane posting of Veeky Forums

I guess that's why they call it...pol position.

I don't really disagree with this passage. Largely it seems to be saying the same thing I am (that is, Socrates argument on atheism is weak), it's just justifying that on the grounds that Socrates's true goal was to legitimize philosophy. I think that that's mostly correct. I just don't want people to think that "Socrates's Apology is good" means that "Socrates made good arguments." The work can be interpreted in multiple ways and within its specific judicial context Socrates didn't do a good job.

Stirner marks the difference between a person and the ideas which occupy and drive the person. This thread was rife with people talking of dying for your convictions, of integrity, and is there an honest refutation to Stirner in his criticisms of such thinking? Your subjectivity, your ongoing experience of life, is you; a conviction for which you die will take no enjoyment once you are gone, and hollow satisfaction it is to you that you changed some minds, influenced the course of events, when you're dead. But oh, to be manly! Is there a better word than spook for such wrongheadedness?

And as a meme, it's still funny because it still causes people like you to get buttblasted.

Granted, but if his goal isn't to acquit himself of the charges, how could it be said that he didn't "do a good job", as it were? His goal is achieved; he doesn't have to make good arguments from that vantage point.

So you think that the ONLY reason Stirner has stayed relevant is because of the use of the word "spook" and how that evolved into DANK MEMES?

How about you actually read some of his work and hold your own ideology to his fire?

...

>you die will take no enjoyment once you are gone, and hollow satisfaction it is to you that you changed some minds, influenced the course of events, when you're dead

The problem is you are still too focused on the "self" which does not exist, you haven't yet figured it out. Neither did Stirner.

Yes, that's fair. I think I didn't word my last sentence very well.

We are all one consciousness, dude.

Pass the reefer, my man!

Where did you get that from? Like I said before, I really love these dichotomies you create for other people. It's either "this" or it's "that."

Hell, you don't even understand the "conscious."

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

If the "self" does not exist, then what is each human body? Where does "consciousness" begin and end?

To state "you haven't yet figured it out. Neither did Stirner" flatly without expanding or explanation is faggotry par excellence. Why bother replying at all? It's just an unnecessary show of smugness.

The conscious cannot be without matter, mind, perception, and sensation. All of those are in a constant state of flux, ergo your conscious is never the same from one moment to the next. There is no constant self and even life is a construct. So, even if we were to agree that Stirner was right, even your life is a spook so why cling to it if your convictions are challenged. Does one spook outweigh another spook or are they two equal spooks?

As for your human body, it is nothing but flesh and bone, a vehicle for which the conscious can exist. Without the body there would be no sensory organs, no mind, no conscious.

>So you think that the ONLY reason Stirner has stayed relevant is because of the use of the word "spook" and how that evolved into DANK MEMES?

Yes. To be honest I'm not buttblasted about arguing with egoists but I am tired of them exerting an incredibly outsized influence on this board. Stirner is not recognized outside of this board but for some reason he shows up in every thread. Even disregarding the actual arguments about the merits of his philosophy it's just slightly obnoxious. The other user put it very well when he said that Stirnerposting is the Baneposting of Veeky Forums.

Regarding your clamoring for me to disprove Stirner I just don't care. Stirner isn't respected by nearly anyone anymore and plenty of ink has already been spilled about why his crypo-solipsism isn't a satisfying philosophy. You keep shouting "prove me wrong!" and take the silence as proof everyone's scared of your intellectual prowress but really it's because you're obnoxious and no one wants to talk to you.

I don't hate you or anything but I don't find you amusing either.

>even your life is a spook
>Does one spook outweigh another spook or are they two equal spooks?
>your human body, it is nothing but flesh and bone, a vehicle for which the conscious can exist. Without the body there would be no sensory organs, no mind, no conscious.
You have obviously never read any of Stirner outside of Wikipedia and Veeky Forums shitposting. He isn't the definitive philosopher, but you insist on making him some sort of meme pepe frogposter because I believe you have never even tried to read his works. You think you can reduce him to a 10 word greentext, whereas you believe in nothing but irony and facetious jokes.

>Regarding your clamoring for me to disprove Stirner I just don't care...
So you admit to not reading Stirner, not because you disagree with him, but simply because you think he is an internet meme? Wow, you are so smart and revolutionary to believe that you are automatically right without proving anyone else wrong.

"first post best post" and "pol is always right" are a potent combination

How do Stirner posters raise children?

>You think you can reduce him to a 10 word greentext
Yes, because he was an Egoist

children are spooks, parenting is a spook

>slams others for not elaborating
>HURR YOU JUST HAVEN'T READ HIM, I DON'T HAVE TO BACK UP WHAT I'M SAYING

Why don't you reason that out a little?

>Green
>Text