Honestly, his argumentation does not seem to be convincing

Honestly, his argumentation does not seem to be convincing

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read it again.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well hello there future classmate. See you at our seminar next week.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you really want to impress your tutors, ask why Socrates covers his head twice right before he croaks, and ask how the discussion of hypotheses after the autobiography section fits with Recollection.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    its extremely bloated but much of it is convincing. otherwise plato wouldnt have been a fundamental philosopher for multiple major civilizations and their brains

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Socrates was a sophist and a pseud

      No civilization was founded on Plato, brainlet. Not even Romans

      >captcha ATHN0

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        cool it, Caesar

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Crossing the Rubicon was the righteous thing to do

          >No civilization was founded on Plato, brainlet. Not even Romans
          You just straight up ignored what that other poster said. But you're also wrong. The Renaissance West was built on extremely vulgarised and primitive readings of Plato.

          >source: my plebeian ass

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No civilization was founded on Plato, brainlet. Not even Romans
        You just straight up ignored what that other poster said. But you're also wrong. The Renaissance West was built on extremely vulgarised and primitive readings of Plato.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Socrates was a sophist and a pseud
        yes

        ur a moron

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >would a horsekeeper do that?
    >would a smith do that?
    >YEEEEAAAAAAAAA

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with some of the Socratic arguments is they rely on Socrates getting his interlocutors to accept controversial premises very early on that lead them to being fricked over later in the dialogue because, although the logical transition from one statement to the next makes sense, the originally accepted premises are highly questionable.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes anon that is how refutation works.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      When he asks the interlocutor, he's asking you. Try answering every question yourself.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's called bad writing

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but then I answer something different at page one and the rest of the chapter is irrelevant to my position

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The problem is that these premises rely on now arachaic concepts you aren't aware of like difference in homeric or hesiodic justice and so you can't follow the argument and think there are logical leaps

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sometimes I think that's true, like in the Gorgias, where it als seems to be a lowky way of showing the three interlocutors the weakness of Gorgianic rhetoric by mimicking it back to them (so Socrates gets everyone to nominally agree without being persuaded all of these theses about justice without ever defining justice, which Socrates at the beginning critcizes as poor methodology). But in a number of cases, it seems like he more often just hangs people with the rope they hand him, like Ion (who actually avoids radical positions Socrates offers) and Euthyphro.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    instrumental reason is way more convincing today and we are more than ready to risk bad karmic retribution at the end of life instead of wasting time and energy behaving according to Virtue or Good if it is not convincing enough to reach our goals in this life.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *