/lit/ - Literature

If you don't completely agree with what Socrates said then you are retarded

>>16015829
Bait

>>16015829 The problem isn’t that I disagree. The problem is that he completely skips over this possibility.

Bump

Bump

>>16015816
The soul can be something else. The main point is there is no death, there's only life and loss of it. I've been trying to wrap my mind around a soul but it follows from his metaphysics. Even the body is transmuted to other elements so where does your consciousness go?

>>16015953
Exactly. The theory of life generating from death can be explained by all organic things decomposing and making up new living things. This is one explanation, and while it does not make one involving the soul impossible, it can exist without it. As for consciousness, if you believe that consciousness is just the result of the arrangement of atoms then it could just disappear.

>>16015816
Don't you think that soul in their world meant psyche?

>>16015816
the importance of the dialogue relies on the myth and its metaphysical connotations. to put it very simply the soul, that is, conscience once in what can be called the perfect, eternal inmutable one, now falls onto the many, the realm of becoming. This is basically the premise of all posterior philosophy, in a discrete way, we can obviously see it in so many philosophers:
aristotle, plotinus, spinoza, hegel... the list goes on.

>>16015981
Could it tho? I don't have a full opinion but I mean cutting off its source doesn't cut off what was already let out.

>>16015987
It doesn’t matter. If we go by the notion that the psyche is just an arrangement of atoms, then it wouldn’t need to go anywhere. The atoms would continue on into other living things, but they will take a different organization. I’m not saying there is no soul, or that there isn’t some metaphysical aspect to the psyche. I’m just trying to find a way to understand this considering what seems to be a big gap in his reasoning. Couldn’t find anything about this online.

>>16015953
it returnes to the one once it has developed the proper ethical requirements to "endure the travel".

>>16015816
This is a problem only if you read Plato by thinking that what he means by soul is that which, nowadays, is called soul. We generally imagine some sort of vague mind, either very much like a body, or just our minds; this is not what the ancient Greeks understood by it.
For them, as Plato himself says in the Cratylus, it is that which separates living beings from non living ones, that is, that principle by which they move and rest by themselves and for themselves, in a way in which, water, for example, does not. The question in the Phaedo is, then, whether that by which we are alive, which is the soul, is annihilated or not. To say that you do not have a soul, would simply mean, to Plato, that you are not a living being at all, here and now.

>>16016017
Okay, so life certainly goes on after the death of one body, and the death of a body can bring forth more life. This doesn’t necessarily even need to be anything metaphysical though, does it?

>>16015997
So you would have to in this case just take for granted it’s existence? This is a fair requirement, and I don’t think I devalues his philosophy. I’m just curious.

>>16016060
the existence of a soul would be an axiom i believe, yes. With some philosophical manouver one can mend this, in fact, one doesn't even need a soul to have a dialectic between the one and the many, see Deleuze for example, i believe that the body without organs can be understood in these terms.

>>16016005
I did not extensively or even moderately study Plato and his works but I suspect his conclusions are inferential, in that consciousness as an abstract concept is alive whereas concepts such as happiness or sadness are not, and in my opinion the latter would not have the capacity to be embodied in human beings (unlike consciousness can) lest we bring Jesus into the discussion who is called the Logos or Word for example, because Jesus can be said to be the embodiment of wisdom, truth and eternal life.

>>16016052
I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical". If you say it could be a body, that is what he answers to in the first part of the dialogue, showing that it has great problems; if it is a mere ordering, a harmony, he also answers to that. Then, the soul would not be a body, nor an ordering of bodies.

>>16015816
Most of Plato's arguments just expect you agree with him on certain things.

>>16016017
Except in Phaedo it is clear they were talking about soul to mean your own consciousness. Why else would they keep referring to the fear of having it blown away? If you were to lose consciousness but the pseudo life force as you describe was left, it would still be the same as death.

>>16016052
I read it as though the soul may be metabolism, in the sense of being the origin of movement. So does metabolism go on when you die? Sort of ... the eternal chain of reactions go on inside the worms. In the greeks, the soul is eternal for many of the reasons we might consider metabolism to be, except not physical. This analogy works well for me in understanding some of the aspects of the greek soul, others not so much

>>16016339
You're going to hit a wall quick when he starts talking about what being good in your life vs evil brings you in the after. It doesn't have anything to do with metabolism.

>>16015816
That's a good question anon. Let me put a question to you: why did Socrates end up discussing the soul and whether or not it's immortal?

>>16016483
Because he was explaining one of the reasons why he didn’t fear death.

>>16016547
Yes, and why does he have to explain that?

>>16015987
Soul in their world meant a lot things
Psyche was not actually one of them, they had a different word for it which currently evades me

>>16016578
(cont.)

That is, why is Socrates in the position of explaining why he's not afraid of death? Who is he talking to, and how are they responding?

>>16015816
Did you read to the end? I think you should pay closer attention, because there's more to get out Phaedo than that. Even so, if you're just looking for things that reaffirm your worldview, perhaps you should reconsider. I understand that reading a disagreeing text with your worldview being unattractive for a long contemporary tome, but Phaedo is short and ancient.

>>16016605
Psyche is just the Latin spelling for the Greek word for soul. Are you thinking spirit, 'pneuma'?

>>16016614
Yeah, Psyche is the Greek word for soul, but it does not mean what modern English Psyche means unless you meant something different and I'm being retarded

>>16016608
He’s talking to his friends, and they are responding in a similar way to me. Although they neglect to question if the soul doesn’t exist at all. Hence my question.

>>16016621
I'm a different anon from whoever brought it up, so not sure on their part. If they mean something like mind by "psyche", then, while it's not the same as the soul, it is treat as something that has its locus in the soul.

>>16016608
Wait, I think I see what you’re getting at. Such a question as to whether the soul exists or not isn’t relevant in speaking to them because they already believe that it does, and so he is operating under that assumption?

>>16016631
That's a good starting place. Something of historical interest to note is that about half of the people present are Pythagoreans, so they already believe that there's a soul, have a sense of what it is, believe that it's immortal and comes back to take new bodily forms, etc. The two main participants, Simmias and Cebes, are both Pythagorean (Apollodorus is not; consider why he might still be crying throughout).

So one starting point for beginning to understand what's going on is maybe this as a really basic "plot" of the dialogue:

Socrates is about to be executed and his friends visit him and are upset he's about to die and unnerved at his seeming indifference to that.

Maybe even this question might help you start to take something away from this:

Why do a bunch of Pytgagoreans who already believe all that stuff listed above need Socrates to remind them of what they already believe?

>>16016657
Yes, absolutely. He sort of hints at what he's doing in his approaches in the dialogues around 99d-100b. That might be relevant here.

>>16016683
I suppose it’s because they aren’t certain of their beliefs, but they respect Socrates so greatly that him confirming these beliefs will comfort them.

>>16016683
Not that guy but stop LARPing as Socrates and just give your fucking thoughts retard. Tired of pseuds like you wasting peoples time.

>>16016728
Yes, they have doubts and fears about death, and Socrates's arguments have some comforting effect.

So here's maybe another guiding question:

There's 4 major arguments about the immortality of the soul that almost each result in dissatisfaction, culminating in a kind of autobiography Socrates gives of how he came to philosophy. Socrates at the beginning says that philosophy is nothing else but preparing for death. Is there a connection between that characterization and this constant push from Socrates to keep examining, and if so, what might that be?

>>16016751
Kek kinda missing the whole point of reading Plato

>>16016810
Fuck Plato, the only person to exist that was more pretentious than him was Hegel. Both waste massive amounts of your time, which leads people to develop sunk cost ala "since it wasted so much of my time, its gud" thoughts.

>>16016905

>>16015816
This >>16016017 answers a lot for you, OP. Now what is your doubt?

>>16016787
To bring anamnesis from each of them?

>>16016905
>that lack of self awareness
Well thanks for wasting all our time

>>16015816
The soul is synonymous with life. Whats the difference between a dead lump of matter and live one? The soul. Your missing the point that the soul is so obviously real that only an insane society could reject it. Nonetheless, here we are.
>>16016017
Well said.
>>16016052
Only goes to show how poisoned philosophy has become. It doesn't "need to be" metaphysical, but it can be. All phenomenal reality can be read as metaphysical symbology on a subtle enough level.

>>16018835
>>16016916
>t. think reading "By zeus Socrates, you are right!" 100 times is enlightening.

>>16019465
>whats the difference between a dead lump of matter and live one? The soul
Time for you to take biology 101 buddy

>>16015816
In Apology he questions whether the soul is real. He says if it is real then he would go to the afterlife and if it isn't then it would be like permanent sleep so he doesn't care either way. This is like the first fucking sialogue you should read when discussing Plato, you stupid stupid idiot. They should call you Mr. Idiot and then you can go fondle your mantits.

>>16015987
Their were multiple ideas of soul, psyche being one.

>>16016118
Plato believed Happiness and Sadness existed as forms. A form is only a copy innthis world and not its true self.

>>16016605
Thumos

>>16019907
what is it then?

>>16020409
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things have cells.
Living things reproduce.
Living things use energy.
There are other lists you can use but that covers it well enough for what I'm willing to be in a 4chan post. I'm sure you plan on find the extremely niche cases out of literal billions of situations where it applies perfectly in order to "epic btfo" of me. Just know that it only shows you a pseud and I won't bother replying.

>>16020649
>posts in a Socrates thread
>complains about gadfly nitpicking

>>16020707
>Be Socrates
>State you are a gadfly
>Be executed like one would immediately swat a gadfly
Classic.

Doesnt Socrates attempt to prove the soul with the doctrine of recollection early on in the Phaedo?

>>16015981
>if you believe that consciousness is just the result of the arrangement of atoms then it could just disappear.
Socrates addresses this when the Pythagorean compares the soul to a harmony of parts, like a lyre. Socrates says if the soul were made of parts, then the whole would not have sovereignty over itself but rather be subject to its parts.

>>16020649
Where from does the self actualizing power in living things originate?

>>16018705
>>16020948
The argument from recollection is used and then set aside. Continued argument seems to be more important than recollection somehow.

There's a bit of a joke there with the Pythagoreans saying "hey Socrates, how did that argument about recollection go? We've forgotten."

>>16020948
>Socrates attempt to prove the soul with the doctrine of recollection
Yes, except it was in Meno he did that.
2+2=4, thus recollection, thus innate knowledge, thus soul, thus etc.
That is the intellectual power of socrates.

>>16020995
Yeah, the part in the Meno with the slave is easily one of the weakest Socratic arguments.

>atheistic readings of plato
cringier than a christian reading of nietzche

>>16020995
He drops it almost immediately after "proving" it in the Meno in favor of working out hypotheses.

>>16020984
>self actualizing
>real
lol

>>16020992
>There's a bit of a joke there with the Pythagoreans saying "hey Socrates, how did that argument about recollection go? We've forgotten."
Kek. Plato really was a clever author
>>16020995
I dont think you're accounting for Meno's paradox. For all subjects of enquiry, one either does or does not have knowledge. If one does have knowledge of the subject, then he cannot enquire into it, for he already knows it. For a subject he does not have knowledge of, he cannot enquire into it, because to enquire into something requires knowledge of the subject of what is being enquired. How then can someone come to new knowledge? I dont remember if this was in the Meno or the Phaedo, but suppose you see two sticks of equal length. Never have you seen a thing called "equality of length" and yet you recall the two sticks are the same. How can you have this knowledge?

>>16021040
We kniw dna self replicates. Assuming free will, we know things choose to act. Unless you're purporting all things which science consideres to be alive to be led along by puppet strings, then there is an act of self actualizing. The power to self actualize is not in a rock, nor even fire. Where does this principle come from?

>>16021065
>Assuming free will
lol

>>16021089
Without free will, there is no self movement. What then does the moving?
The scientific definition of life has the necessary condition of "respond to the environment."
If there is no free will, there is no "responding" in any meaningful way. A bee would respond to heat exactly in the same way a rock would respond to erosion. By rejecting free will we must reject the scientific definition of life, which will return us to this anons question here
>>16019465 >Whats the difference between a dead lump of matter and live one?

>>16021009
His dialogues critical of religion are the better ones though (Euthyphro).

imagine not believing in your own consciousness. is there anything more NPC than that?

>>16021041
>How can you have this knowledge?
Through similarity. Plato makes the monumentally retarded mistake of thinking that humans have no ability to think. Are the two sticks "perfect forms"? No. Are they similar. Yes. Do we refer to the most similar as Equal? Yes. So where is this innate knowledge needed? The senses are enough to realize what a "perfect form" is.

>>16021129
How do you know what similarity is?

>>16021121
> A bee would respond to heat exactly in the same way a rock would respond to erosion
Wow an actual retard live in action, rocks are not alive. Even then it would still not be argument because there is no reason two different things would react the same.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things have cells.
Living things reproduce.
Living things use energy.

>>16021145
By looking at things and comparing them.

>>16021158
What does it mean to "respond to the environment"?

>>16021176
>

>>16021129
>Plato makes the monumentally retarded mistake of thinking that humans have no ability to think.
Dangerously based.

>>16021173
In order to compare objects you must already posses an idea of qualities which are different and alike. When you look at two sticks you see only atoms. There is nothing inside the sticks called "equality". Where did the presupposed notion of "dissimilar" and "similar" occur?

>>16021126
Criticism of the state religion of athens is not the same as atheism. Also, Plato isnt "critical" in these early socratic dialogues, they are simply tutorials on philosophical thinking. The only criticsm is of Socrates' theory of knowledge which is later disavowed

>>16021209
>When you look at two sticks you see only atoms.
Wrong. You can see shapes and forms of objects can you not? No, that does not mean what you are about to reply with. Memory exists, since sight/senses do as well, innate knowledge is not required.

>>16021126
It so easily solved though. God does not "approve of" justice as some concept external to him, he is justice and wills it by existing. It is just because it is God. Plato's "The one" of the forms answers it

>>16021288
We can remember a stick we saw a week ago. We use our senses to see a stick today. Where do the qualities of similarity or dissimilarity exist within the vision and memory? Those qualities are ideas. They are abstract notions. I suppose Locke makes an interesting claim that the abstract notions come from refelctions on impressions, but I think Plato's claim that these ideas are presupposed by some other means is also worth considering. I appreciate the dialogue anon. Have a nice rest of your day

YES OF COURSE MANY OF PLATOS ARGUMENTS ARE IMPLICITLY TIED TO THE CULTURAL SURROUNDINGS AND CULTURAL CONSENSUS YOU FUCKING NIGGERS YES OF COURSE 2000 YEARS OF RELIGIOUS, PHILOSOPHICAL, TECH, CULTURE, AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL GIVE HINDSIGHT, YES YOU FUCKING NIGGER YES YOU HAVE 2000 YEARS OF HINDSIGHT ON PLATO. READ GADAMERS TRUTH AND METHOD YOU ABSOLUTE BRAINDEAD JUNIOR COLLEGE INTRO TO GREEK PHILOSOPHY TAKING UNDERAGE NIGGERPCS

>>16021355
Shhh take it easy anon. You're right tho, Gadamer rules.

>>16015816
Correct. The entire dialogue is predicated upon a completely unsubstantiated contention inexplicably taken at face value by his straw men to be axiomatic. May just as well have been a discourse on the physiological minutiae of a unicorn.

>>16021329
>Where do the qualities of similarity or dissimilarity exist within the vision and memory?
Thought and reason anon. One sees two rocks exactly the same, through memory he knows they look and feel the same yet there are two of them. What other reason can exist except to call them merely similar or equal? The same yet not the same, that is the way of man. One does not need a magical "perfect form" nor does it even exist, what does exist is close enough for the mind to make the connection between two things.

>Plato's claim that these ideas are presupposed by some other means is also worth considering.
If you are religious or scared of death I suppose so.
> I appreciate the dialogue anon. Have a nice rest of your day
Same here.

>>16021281
I didn't say it was atheism. However it can be used as a good argument by atheists. Why even be religious if God is immoral by human conceptions of morality?

>>16021355
>Platonigger LOSES IT when others realize Plato was a hack

>>16021325
The Forms is more like the demiurge than like the Divine Command Theory God.

>>16021281
The Euthypho is pretty blatantly critical of state religion, and the Euthypho paradox itself suggests there's no point in bothering with the gods if they're looking to forms we can look to as well.