i need help making sense of this
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
lesser hippias
i need help making sense of this
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
remind me of the story and i will illuminate it for you
it’s the one where socrates is debating with a guy over whether achilles or odysseus is a better man. socrates says odysseus is better because he lies willingly. i think it’s the ending lines that throw me off more than anything though.
It’s better to do wrong intentionally because the one doing so at least has the knowledge of right and wrong. The point of the dialogue is the importance of truth and knowledge.
>It’s better to do wrong intentionally because the one doing so at least has the knowledge of right and wrong.
Damn, that is the exact opposite teaching to Christianity
Hippias the Sophist was really full of himself and a smarmy, Redditor type guy of the time who acted like he had everything figured out. Socrates attempts in this dialogue to show the disparity between attempting to do good and actual knowledge of the good. An attempt at morality and justice is entirely useless without even basic knowledge of what they are which is why Hippias’ arguments for Achilles being the better than Odysseus really falls apart.
Socrates does argue for the opposite notion in the Critias dialogue as well iirc. You will notice that in many of these early dialogues Socrates displays ideas which he would later oppose in other dialogues. You could find entirely contradictory quotes from Socrates in Plato’s work depending on the dialogue.
socrates justifying his own ceaseless lying btw
It is about many things but an important one is his distrust of the Greek myths which led to his trial and also the contradictory messages the myths provided. Also Hippias (and the Sophists in general) lack of knowledge means they are more incompetent than those who know the Good but intentionally due evil out of malice anyways.
socrates is a bad actor, worse than modern day politicians, rarely spoke a a naked truth, and the few occasions are only to clothe the lies
he’s completely, perfectly, disingenuous . a true machiavellian, he deserved to be exiled, and he shows himself to be the selfish psycho by choosing death
strength always wins socrates, always, it’s in the definition of strength, knowledge is only a form of strength, it never supersedes it. a perfect inversion
i would’ve asked him to leave too useless frick talks too much
In the early dialogues at least, Socrates very rarely makes declarative statements. If you disagree with something it is the Sophist realizing the flaws in his own thinking.
I actually do feel that Socrates would often make assumptions and say untrue things but Shorter Hippias in particular is one of my favorite dialogues.
Oh I see, anon. I see.
Lesser hippies are just contrarian hippies. Middle of the road types. Marijuana but no psychedelics, against the Nam but not into protest rallies, casual sex but not in public.
Why are you reading the fake dialogues?
becuase it is not fake? no one doubts it’s authenticity anymore.
It is important to understand this book in the context of Plato’s opus. This is from the early dialogues where Socrates raises questions which end in aporia. The idea is to get you to question commonly held notions and convictions and to actually think for yourself.
Ok sirry you are actually correct, I just double-checked.
These are the dialogues largely considered inauthentic today:
Second Alcibiades
Hipparchus
Rival Lovers
Clitophon
Epinomis
Theages
Minos
Isn't Alcibiades also considered something akin to a later retelling of an original text too, one in which a 3rd-4th century author took some artistic freedom with? I thought that partly was the reason to Second Alcibiades inauthenticity.
Rival Lovers really stands out though, it's written in a completely unique style and is just quite dumb.
Yes, Alcibiades is thought to have been written by one of Plato's students at the Academia. Also Clitophon is thought to have been a parody from a rival school of philosophy mocking the Socratic method.
I highly recommend this series of commentaries on this dialogue. At the beginning they tackle the problem of it's authenticity.
None of those were contested by the ancient Academics, who were in a position to know collectively what was passed down by their founder and what was added later. For instance, everyone knew On Virtue, On Justice, Halcyon, and Sisyphus were fake, there was never any question of it. Meanwhile, the modern judgements are shaped in light of what *modern* philosophy is, so the shorter dialogues are dismissed for not matching the content modern academics expect. (But this can be shown to be silly on the following way: no one disagrees that Plato wrote the intro of Theatetus with Euclides and Terpsion, but modern scholars still barely cast a glance on what it's doing or why it's there. Even when something is demonstrably by Plato, academics will ignore it if it doesn't fit modern suppositions.)
>Rival Lovers really stands out though, it's written in a completely unique style and is just quite dumb.
Lolwut? The first person narration of Socrates is already present in Republic, Charmides, Protagoras, and Lysis; the flirtyness is already a schtick in the Alcibiades-present dialogues, Lysis, and Charmides; the argument itself about the arts isn't substantially different than the thrust of the arguments about the arts in the Republic. Nothing about Rival Lovers stands out as lacking something thoroughly Platonic in other dialogues.
Lesser hippias leads towards the idea that nobody commits wrongdoings on purpose. A sprinter will willingly lose a race, but nobody who isn't ignorant will commit a wrongdoing.