please help

Im reading now apology of socrates, and im only getting annoyed by socrates' posture and make hard to enjoy the reading. He's sounds extremelly smug, and most of his arguments have several logic flaws. Not only that, why the frick cant he just behave like a adult in the trial: instead of making a proper defense, he keeps making attacks to his accusers. Am I supposed to interpret this in another way?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He is smug in the Apology. He's not trying to win, he's trying to explain why he does what he does, and demonstrate that he truly believes what he says. If he had submitted to the will of his accusers, it would have made his entire philosophy ring hollow. One has to realize that his accusers were not great people at all and he had no reason to respect them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it makes sense in that way, but I dont know if it is the translation im reading, but it really looks like socrates is making a fool of himself in front of athenians. In a moment, he argued that meletus was a liar, because he claimed socrates was corrupting the youth. Then socrates says he was not corrupting them, or it was unintentionally, so he was not a criminal (this is merely a statement, but socrates behaves like he was presenting a valid evidence)
      Also, another meletus's accusation wad tha socrates was rejecting athenian gods and praising other gods, and influencing the youth to do the same. To that, socrates make a red herring and simply makes an analogy (do you believe there is someone who can believe in demoniac things, but not in demons?), and then again insinuates meletus was a liar, because socrates was not an atheist, therefore he couldnt praise demons without believing in the gods.

      this must be my translation, because socrates really sounds moronic

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is no knowledge to be found reading the apology.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          and why is that?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Socrates explained why he has been charged for corrupting the youth. After the oracle told him he was the wisest man, he figured out this is only true because he accepts that he knows nothing. And he tested the oracle by seeking a man who is wiser than he, and instead finding only people who have preconceptions of truth. He explains how the rich children would come and listen to him in questioning these arbiters of knowledge, observe how he would do it, and then do the same

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Socrates explained why he has been charged for corrupting the youth. After the oracle told him he was the wisest man, he figured out this is only true because he accepts that he knows nothing. And he tested the oracle by seeking a man who is wiser than he, and instead finding only people who have preconceptions of truth. He explains how the rich children would come and listen to him in questioning these arbiters of knowledge, observe how he would do it, and then do the same

        I figured this out through one reading of the apology.

        Of course there is no argument against it-he HAS "corrupted" the youth against the learning institutions. But in the Socratic method fashion, what exactly does corrupting mean? This was not a fair trial. Socrates knew he lost.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not Zeus?
        Not Athena?
        Not even Apollo?
        Oh for shame Socrates.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also, another meletus's accusation wad tha socrates was rejecting athenian gods and praising other gods, and influencing the youth to do the same. To that, socrates make a red herring and simply makes an analogy (do you believe there is someone who can believe in demoniac things, but not in demons?), and then again insinuates meletus was a liar, because socrates was not an atheist, therefore he couldnt praise demons without believing in the gods.
        Maybe it's your translation that making the omissions, but you're leaving out that Meletus accused him of Atheism, as well as worshipping other Gods. You obviously can't worship Gods if you don't believe in them. Meletus' argument is self-refuting. That was Socrates' point. It would be like if there was a country where it was punishable my death to have anal sex, and to be a virgin. If you were on trial for being a sodomite virgin, would you not bring up the fact that the very charges are self-refuting? Why would that make you a moron?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Maybe it's your translation that making the omissions, but you're leaving out that Meletus accused him of Atheism, as well as worshipping other Gods

          Yeah it was definitely the translation. My native language is known for constant ambiguities, so in the moment socrates asked meletus whether he believed socrates rejected the state gods and worshipped other gods or an atheist ("didnt believe in gods at all", as it was writtrn), the translation had the meletus' response as "you dont believe in THE Gods at all" (it read as he was referring to the athenian gods, not any god)

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >say you won't take revenge on political enemies after this day
    >execute the guy that makes everyone look moronic because he used to be friends with some BPD twink

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    holy shit I literally just switched to another language translation and suddenly socrates became smarter

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There is another thing: - young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves; there are plenty of persons, as they soon enough discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing: and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth! - and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected - which is the truth: and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. And this is the reason why my three accusers, Meletus and Anytus and Lycon, have set upon me; Meletus, who has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen; Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians: and as I said at the beginning, I cannot expect to get rid of this mass of calumny all in a moment. And this, O men of Athens, is the truth and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet I know that this plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth? - this is the occasion and reason of their slander of me, as you will find out either in this or in any future inquiry.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Socrates: Come hither, Meletus, and let me ask a question of you. You think a great deal about the improvement of youth?

      Meletus: Yes, I do.

      Tell the judges, then, who is their improver; for you must know, as you have taken the pains to discover their corrupter, and are citing and accusing me before them. Speak, then, and tell the judges who their improver is. Observe, Meletus, that you are silent, and have nothing to say. But is not this rather disgraceful, and a very considerable proof of what I was saying, that you have no interest in the matter? Speak up, friend, and tell us who their improver is.

      The laws.

      But that, my good sir, is not my meaning. I want to know who the person is, who, in the first place, knows the laws.

      The judges, Socrates, who are present in court.

      What do you mean to say, Meletus, that they are able to instruct and improve youth?

      Certainly they are.

      What, all of them, or some only and not others?

      All of them.

      By the goddess Here, that is good news! There are plenty of improvers, then. And what do you say of the audience, - do they improve them?

      Yes, they do.

      And the senators?

      Yes, the senators improve them.

      But perhaps the members of the citizen assembly corrupt them? - or do they too improve them?

      They improve them.

      Then every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm?

      That is what I stoutly affirm.

      (If you can't see that meletus looks like a fool here the you are a fool)

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine you're a based high IQ giga chad who has been following the discreet commands of a spirit for decades, enriching the wisdom of the youth of your city, for which you fought in its last war, and generally being a great guy. Now along comes some little uppity trad-gays who want to make their name by feasting on your corpse--giving all the vulturous carrion-eaters of your city the perfect chance to get revenge on you for all your years of making them look stupid.

    How the frick would you feel, you little man-pleaser homosexual? If you would waltz in there, a man of seventy years old and suck the dicks of that jury for the sake of getting out of a death sentence, you are a wussy little homosexual and cannot possibly compare to or understand the manliness of based 70 year old Socrates.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine you are a Wikipedia editor on a quest to change all the articles on Wikipedia so that it reflects the truth about the Holocaust. You autistically follow all the rules in doing so. Then, out of nowhere, every other Wikipedia editor comes down on you, making all sorts of false accusations against you, including ones that are illogical, contradictory, self-refuting. There is no other explanation than that they wish to destroy you for your political positions; after all, you've followed all the rules, and if there was an honest case against your work, it wouldn't be so hysterically nonsensical and incoherent. But Wikipedia has all sorts of complex rules about having to "assume good faith" on the part of other users. So, autistically following the rules, you assume good faith, even though you know deep down that they just hate you and want to destroy you. This makes them even more mad; the more "good faith" you assume on their part, the more it reminds them of their own "bad faith", which makes them hate you even more. They wish you would just sink down to their level. And you know what you're doing, which makes you come off as, yes, a little bit smug. That's basically who Socrates was. His smugness was his humility.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FRICK YOU YOU LITTLE homosexual STOP THIE POST PARODYING BULLSHIT LIKE WE'VE FRICKING THIRD GRADERS

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That book is telling us the truth about the justice of killing high IQ scams. If he isn’t trying his best to get himself across to us, electrocuting him is OK. It’s not our fault being not able to understand what he says. He deserves to be poisoned.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your story would not have been told, beta b***h.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Almost all of Plato's and Socrates students went on to be tyrants, attempt coups, and teach others who became tyrants. They were justified in expecting him.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Socrates resisted the tyrants and refused to carry out their murders, but was brave in dutiful in fighting in the infantry for Athens, going man to man against the Spartans on the field of battle.

      That some of his students failed to live up to his teaching doesn't discredit it. Rather, it goes along perfectly with Plato's assertion that a person's rational part of the soul must guide them, that one cannot force virtue into them.

      Plato doesn't want to train people like animals, he wants them to be free, self determining and not slaves to desire, circumstance, and instinct, knowing why they act.

      You could as well criticize Aristotle for Alexander, but we could also consider if Alexander might have collapsed into degeneracy even earlier with his great tutor. Notably, the degeneracy comes when he is removed from the sage's influence.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but even the Medicis who reastablished Plato's academy in renaissance Italy were tyrants and their students became tyrants. I don't actually see Platonism or Socrates teaching as actually being anti tyranny.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Passages in the republic about the 3 stages: democracy, dictatorship, and oligarchy and how one leads to the other seem to be more indicative of their mindset. The republic does offer a considerable amount of material on their thoughts in relation to this topic though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I did feel like Critias' dialogue with Socrates was meant to make Critias (Plato's Uncle) look good despite his horrible behavior. The arguments Socrates used are really weak.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think the opposite. Hermogenes, the Syracusan general who fought Athens during the Sicilian expedition is present for both Timaeus and Critias, and while he barely says anything, his presence is a reminder that Athens will behave toward Sicily as Atlatis did Athens. Critias in those dialogues is shown not to have learned the moderation Socrates tried to teach him in the Charmides, and so doesn't see Athens as ready to fall prey to Atlantis' vices.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Plato is conflicted. On the one hand, he says that everyone has the capacity to learn and a gold, rational, portion of the soul. Yet Plato was also scarred by watching Socrates killed by the mob, and is skeptical about the pragmatics of all people coming to be developed in this way.

          In the Republic, when we take the city as an analogy to the soul, we see the rational part ruling over the spirited and appetitive parts through trickery (the noble lies, the rigged breeding lottery) and dogma. And yet Plato also has a vision of harmony in the ideal polis that would seem to suggest that everyone must be ruled by the rational part of the soul. Further, Plato has Socrates allow that the city where the philosopher king rules by a heavy hand is essentially unstable a prone to decay.

          In the Phaedrus, we see the spirited and appetitive parts of the soul being tamed and educated, rather than mastered. The charioteer of the soul is better off with well trained horses than constantly white knuckling the reigns to keep control.

          In this, Plato seems to have transitioned to a view more likely Hegel's, where everyone comes to want what is best for society through bildung, development.

          Plato also prefigures Hegel in The Laws and the Statement when he moves from the iron rule of the philosopher kings to ethics and identity being grounded in historical, emergent laws and cultural practices.

          I think Plato's hostility to particularism is a flaw (Aristotle points this out), and his tyrannical parts, but these are not without offsetting factors.

          To become "like God," in the Timaeus, we must want what is best for everyone. And this means that all must be led out of the cave if possible (whereas the earlier Plato of the Republic leaves most in the cave due to pragmatic concerns).

          What is important here is that the tyranny Plato advanced is merely pragmatic. It emerges from an inability to find a better solution.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Very good! The best post here.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You might consider that the people accusing Socrates are literally trying to have a poor old man jailed or executed for embarrassing them in arguments. He treats them with contempt for good reason.

    Also consider that Plato's project is also a literary one. He wants to replace the Homeric hero, who is driven by passion, with Socrates, who is driven by rationality in pursuit of virtue.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also, consider how Socrates explanation of why he wouldn't want to corrupt the youth would also apply to his accusers. Ultimately, he is saying they are acting out of ignorance of what is good for themselves and the polis. They are led by their passions and appetites.

      He rebukes them as a demonstration to others, it's a corrective act, but it isn't motivated by malice. They aren't evil so much as unable to see what is truly good for the polis, and to see that what is good for the polis is good for them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Almost all of Socrates students went on to be tyrants, educate tyrants, or be associated with the spread of tyranny. Was his execution really not justified?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If almost all Socrates' students became tyrants and brutal fricks, doesn't that mean they were right that Socrates is corrupting the youth?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Quantify "almost all." There's Alcibiades, Critias, and Charmides, three men who act with consequence upon Athens. Chaerophon? A democrat who studies so much that he looks sickly. Crito and Critobulus? Wealthy political moderates who keep out of politics. Xenophon? An oligarchic sympathizer who led Greek mercenaries in Persia, and who otherwise observed and wrote on politics. Antisthenes, Aristippus, Aeschines, Euclides? Founders of philosophical schools. Theages? Turned away from politics out of sickliness and devoted himself to philosophy. And etc. Socrates knew a lot of people, most of whom became harmless dweebs, and the three who became the most infamous were also the three who lived least like Socrates.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >corrupting the youth
      Socrates produced Plato and Aristotle. What are you smoking? Stirred philosophy through the ages. What on earth are you smoking, you little contrarian frick?

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