/lit/ - Literature

>>19633571
I believe everything I read that I enjoy at face value and do no accept any evidence to the contrary

>>19633571
More real than jesus

>>19633571
>He still thinks Kaczynski was real

>>19633571
Why would I not believe Socrates existed?

>>19633571
This but Diogenes.

>>19633590
Are there any recent pictures of him? I really hope they let him do one last interview, if he can, before he passes.

>>19633610
Because he was an alleged homosexual but still managed to establish almost every single basis of western philosophy. It'd make more sense if he was just a character written by Plato, who said in The Republic that lying is still moral if it teaches good lessons to readers.

>>19633571
This is a pseud meme and anyone who believes it today doesn't know shit about history.

>hurr durr Plato and Xenophon are the only sources! Hurr durr it's impossible to make an informed judgement about what Socrates believed by Plato's dialogues!

>>19633610
you cannot prove with certainty that people from the past existed.
>uuummm sweaty ackshually we know they existed because this old book says so!!!
so if an old dude today writes in a piece of paper that clouds are made of chocolate would you believe it?
old doesn't automatically mean true

>>19633655
Supposedly, he's been moved to a medical facility, or something, recently. But, no, no recent photos of him exist.

>>19633694
Don't forget his appearances in Aristophanes.

>>19633694
see>>19633701

>>19633743
So there was a collective societal effort to invent the character of Socrates, and virtually every other given truth of the historical record?

"Prove with certainty" sounds like empiricist bugman talk.

>>19633571
>Imbecile with no real background on history or philosophy has read somewhere also without background that Socrates may have not existed.
>Thinks is a good idea to publish it here to look edgy.

>>19633571
Socrates existed, Plato is a fictional device.

>>19633775
Yes, you should be certain about your opinions. The rest shouldn't count as an opinion because it is not something you can prove (not saying it's worthless). There are some historical "facts" that are more probable than the existence of Socrates. Also, what effort are you talking about? Only a few authors talk about him as an actual person (usually more like a character actually). For instance, Aristophanes only critized the way Socrates allegedly acted, but this could actually be a criticism towards Plato (Sort of like a "I use your character against you just like you use others' ideas against themselves haha").
>empiricist bugman talk
Do you know what empiricist means? The results of a sensitive experience cannot be proved with certainty, so it is the opposite of what you're trying to convey.

>>19633683
Except the existence of Socrates is attested to in other works not written by Plato.

>>19633817
I bet you only know Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes as the sauces for Socrates. He had a myriad of students, and at least four went on to create different schools of philosophy of great historical importance, and there has been much commentary in ancient Greece of who was the most authentic successor to Socrates. If we add up all these different figures, the diversity and unique handling of Socrates evident in Plato's dialogue (where he makes an obvious distinguishment between his own philosophy and Socrates'), we have a fairly good understanding of him as a person and his historical importance.

And this is just one example of numerous!

>>19634019
Okay, you win. Could you tell me who these 4 are? Genuily interested. I still think some of what is reported in Plato's dialogues weren't actually said by Socrates, but I now recondiser my opinion.

>>19634204
Just google it you lazy fucker. Also, Plato mentions Socrates not only in his dialogues but also in his letters, refering to his OBVIOUS non-fictional existence.

Literally what would be the purpose

>>19633583
BASED

>>19633583

>>19633817
>For instance, Aristophanes only critized the way Socrates allegedly acted, but this could actually be a criticism towards Plato (Sort of like a "I use your character against you just like you use others' ideas against themselves haha").
Plato was much younger than Aristophanes, and Aristophanes gives an indication in the Clouds itself of both when it was first performed, and when it was revised. The members of Plato's academy were all initially associates and friends of Socrates, such that younger students like Aristotle could ask any of them what he was like. What's more, there were Socratic dialogues written by other friends of Socrates, such as Antisthenes and Aeschines, with substantial quotes from some of the latter's dialogues still surviving in the works of various other writers.

>he doesn't know socrates was a muslim

>>19633571
Sure, Socrates existed, the real hot take is that Meletus did nothing wrong.

>>19633701
not them, and I agree with you that just because a few people wrote about some person in a book hundreds of years ago that it doesn't necessarily mean they existed, but I don't see how the logical conclusion from the premise is that Socrates didn't exist.

Ve believe in NUSSING' LEBOWSKI! GIVES US THE MONEH OR VE FUCKS YOU UP MAHN!

Why are you assuming shit about me? Stop.

>>19633571
Socrates is as real as Homer

>he still believes jesus existed

>>19633735
yeah, thats a great historical source, retard.