Didymos Thomas wrote:
That's fine. But your analysis of Socrates misses a vital point. Socrates was killed because Athens had recently been defeated, it's liberal ruler had just died and an intense plaque was ravaging the city. The Athenians wanted stability and Socrates was a mischief maker. His execution really is that simple.
You may not agree with Socrates' philosophic points of view, but you should respect the man. To call his philosophy "crap" is ludicrous. It's like calling Newtonian physics crap in light of modern physics.
You know, I used to respect Plato and Socrates as much as one can respect the dead... The more I have read about him, having long ago read a bunch of him, and being able to connect a lot of dots with an extensive reading of history, I realize his weaknesses and his strengths, which were more personal than moral.
I would call the Ptolemaic universe crap in relation to the Newtonian Universe which corrects the copernican universe quite reasonably... There is nothing as useless as a failed form... They are crap, and the defense of them causes a lot of suffering while progress waits... Look at the form of our government.. It is crap, but if you read history, what we picked up was what the Romans had on the verge of failure... Did our founding fathers hope to rescue a failed form with human nature when that has always proved itself blind and self serving... Crap is crap where ever and when ever it is found...But, I will say one thing: The knowledge that proved Socrates' philosophy was crap was denied to those people... People see what they have, and societies evolve slowly... When they looked at Orestes, though the story was complete, they could not comprehend his motives, or much of the cause of the behavior shown... Only with the knowledge of primitive society given by anthropology does one see why people behaved in the past as they did...The people of Athens could not refute Socrates, but they could kill him... In fact neither he nor they understood the why or the how of their democracy...He saw that it empowered the undeserving over the deserving... He did not see that societies live and die, stand or fall together....Democracy is essential to unity, and equality is essential to democracy, and the wealth that was the standard of worth, of personal value, perverted the democracy and destroyed equality, and so any group since, like the Catholic Church has relied on the same defense of merit which ends up with merit not having to prove its worth, but the poor having to prove their merit to escape poverty....Where does Socrates call upon the rich to defend their wealth on grounds that it was necessary or good for society long term... He must have been able to see the division, and in fact, he sowed division..... You can figure it out on your own, but a book you might enjoy is the Trial of Socrates by I.F Stone.
You know; he only became dangerous because the poor did not hear him, and the rich listened to him....I don't think he was a bad man... I rather identify with him, being the same sort of muscle headed uneducated man myself... What Aristippus said of him is quite kind..I'll see if I can find it...
Here: From the The Life of Greece, Vol. 2 of Will Durant's story of civilization series, of which I am the proud owner of most..." He gave himself away by reverencing Socrates, loving philosophy, and confessing that the most impressive spectacle in life is the sight of a virtuous man steadily pursuing his course in the midst of a vicious people."
I add this advice he gave to his daugther Arete who was considered after him, the Light of Hellas. Which was what the Greeks called their world. He said: To set a value on nothing you can live without...What Durant calls a strange surrender to Diogenes... She succeeded him as head of the Cyreniac school, wrote forty books and had many distinguished students.