Or was he an invention of Plato? I read in a book that perhaps Socrates wasn't real... (Socrates Cafe was the name of the book and I didn't finish the book)..
If he wasn't real, why would Plato create him?
Was Socrates Real?
Or was he an invention of Plato? I read in a book that perhaps Socrates wasn't real... (Socrates Cafe was the name of the book and I didn't finish the book)..
If he wasn't real, why would Plato create him?
Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.
Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
Kurt Vonnegut
Campidoctor
Go here: http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philo...rates.htm#Real
It explains it pretty good.
"And I have felt the sudden blow of a nameless wind's cold breath,
And watched the grisly pilgrims go that walk the roads of Death,
And I have seen black valleys gape, abysses in the gloom,
And I have fought the deathless Ape that guards the Doors of Doom."
-Robert E. Howard "Recompense"
Mr Common Sense
Not only Plato, but Xenophn and Aristophanes would also have had to create him; a collusion between an irreverent comedian, a philosopher, and a soldier/philosopher? Unlikely to say the least.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Some people have nothing better to do.
They try to attract attention with "shocking" themes as "Was Socrates Real? " or "Did we landed on moon".
ah? Are you implying that I put this thread so that I could get attention?Some people have nothing better to do.
They try to attract attention with "shocking" themes as "Was Socrates Real? " or "Did we landed on moon".
Thanks for the link Drexx but do we have any proof that Socrates was real apart from the writtings of those three people?
Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.
Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
Kurt Vonnegut
No I do not.Originally Posted by Jesus The Inane
ah? Are you implying that I put this thread so that I could get attention?
Thanks for the link Drexx but do we have any proof that Socrates was real apart from the writtings of those three people?
But someone or some people spended lot of time writting conspiracy theories.
http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philo...rates.htm#Real
Last edited by Epirote; July 01, 2005 at 05:08 PM.
Mr Common Sense
This [the site] assumes Socrates is real, rather than countering the argument he might have been fake; it is more an explanation of his philosophy than anything else.
The thing we do not really know about Socrates is his true philosophy; Plato uses him as a mouthpiece, Aristophanes as a caricature, and Xenophon... well, I don't know about Xenophon. But we don't really see the man himself in Plato, or "The Clouds"; I hope Xenophon gave us a clearer picture.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Artifex
Moved to Vestigia Vetustatis.
Keep this site happy & report flamming and abusive posts ASAP
Everytime I learn something new, it pushes old stuff out of my brain -Homer (Simpson)
Under the Honoured Patronage of the Divus Sulla. Please visit The Living Past Forum
Patron of the Civitates Ozymandias & Dan_Grr
Semisalis
I think there is no reason to believe that he didn't exist. Aristotle wrote that he(Aristotle) left Athens after the death of Alexander because he wasn't going to let the Athenians sin twice against philosophy, which is of course a reference to the execution of Socrates.
Comes Limitis
Well, of course he existed, its in various first-hand historical sources, such as Aristotle's references, and neptune just mentioned.
hoi polloi
In addition Plato for example was hardly writing approved PR for a totaltarian state. If Socrates was a total fabricatiob, it's hard not to think that Demosthenes or Hyperides would not have taken a pot shot a Plato for making up fairy tales...
Squeakus MaximusPlato uses him as a mouthpiece
Plato certainly uses Socrates as a mouthpiece in his later works, but the Socrates of Crito or the Apology stakes out a moral and philosophical position that is quit at odds with Plato’s. I think you can see the real Socrates in some of the Platonic works.
Mr Common Sense
Excuse me, but tell me what the republic is other than approved PR? It favours a state where the intellectual elite rules, with no input; an oligarchic state in oter words.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Epirote you got me confuse now. That link is the same link Drexx gave in the second post and I see no conspiracy theories in there...
What is PR?
Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.
Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
Kurt Vonnegut
The whole title is a conspiracy theory.
That`s all.
And the link was to show that.
Yet is is the same as drexx`s cause he showed the article.
PR???
I will ask you back.
What is PR???
Mr Common Sense
PR=Public Relations. What is more likely to be meant is propaganda and spin, the basic tools of any PR-man. And I ask again: what is The Republic except support for an intellectual oligarchy?
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
hoi polloi
Squeakus Maximus
The point I was trying to make was not that much of Plato’s work is not in fact a recipe for an idealized totalitarian oligarchic state with philosophical support added (it is), but rather that Plato was not living in or writing in or representing such a state. He was living in the democracy of Athens very much the polar opposite of his ideal state. He was estranged from his own society, and his writings and work would have largely appealed to the sophists he critiques, later philosophers or his fellow aristocratic critics of the Athenian democracy. Considering how central Socrates is to so much of Plato’s work, his wholesale invention, seems extremely unlikely to have failed to provoke attacks or derision from other writers, and philosophers.
Last edited by conon394; July 03, 2005 at 12:36 PM.
Mr Common Sense
True; contemporaries would have had it in for him. But on the other hand, creation of a chracter to serve as the mouthpiece of one's own philosophy distances one from it, almost removing and absolving responsibility. How many contemporaries of Plato wrote their philosophies down, and how many of those actually espoused it themselves within their own penmanship?
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
The Republic has a deeper level than is being attributed to it. It is not simply a piece in favor of an oligarchic state, though I can see how one would reach the conclusion. If you read the entirety of The Republic, you find that Plato seems to be pointing towards an overall excellence of the individual which would then translate to an excellence of the state; this is in no way 'approved' PR, and though his discussion of democracy seems terribly nice towards Athens, if you read the explanation of how a democratic man becomes a tyrant, you see his real criticisms of his contemporaries. As for Socrates, he was real. The only reason the question ever arises is because he left no records of his own words. Disbelieving in the existence of Socrates is like saying that Jesus never existed; whether you're Christian or not, it's pretty obvious that Jesus existed from records, even though he left no works of his own. Similarly, multiple persons in ancient history comment on Socrates (often from different points of view, countering the conspiracy theory). Aristophanes criticized him, while Plato portrayed him as a very wise figure; if there were a conspiracy, one would expect some general consensus. I suppose you could say that Aristophanes was responding to Plato's criticism of art by attacking his "medium" of Socrates, but I'm not sure the timing on the play(s) in question is appropriate, and even if they were, Aristophanes' plays in no way criticize the state that Plato suggests, only Socrates' way of pursuing an argument. Anyhow, that's my two cents. Socrates is real, he just didn't write anything down. It's happened before. If a person had to write something down to have been real, then a whole lot of the middle ages was imaginary.
PS- If Plato was trying to distance himself from his own philosophy, he wouldn't have gone to Syracuse several times in an attempt to bring about his ideal state. The Socratic method (questioning sequence) was the best way to achieve his point, so he used his teacher towards that end. Plato's own pupil, Aristotle, wrote in his own name, as did many others. The sophists of the day wanted their names known, and so did no such "artificial" distancing. It also would be nowhere near as distancing as suggested.
Last edited by Roslolian; July 03, 2005 at 12:03 PM. Reason: Post Script
Mr Common Sense
Aristophanes does not criticise him so much as charicature (sp?) him in The Clouds.
"Socrates: For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them."
Plato, The Phaedrus Translated HN Fowler para 275a-b
Maybe this explains why Socrates wrote nothing down? It cannot really have been a line of Plato's for obvious reasons, that is he wrote his philosophy down.
On the PS: True, I suppose. You win this one...
Overall, I actually agree that Socrates was real; I just find it interesting to work out arguments against the fact, and see what counters exist. Thanks for yours!
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Not a problem at all. It was my distinct pleasure.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
