Daniel Pinchbeck - the future of psychedelics

[Nomada]

At the same time I don't think it matters if Socrates were real or not.

+1
same for everyone else in the history public, Jesus included.

 

[maxfreakout]

Scientific consensus is right now that most of Plato's earlier dialogues were based on a historical figure called Socrates and the later dialogues are more or less completely thought up by Plato.

this is not 'scientific consensus' in any sense, because this is not a scientific issue but rather it is a historical and philosophical issue, there is no scientific consensus either way. Science is based entirely on observable evidence, but there is no observable evidence at all that Socrates was real

there is only a completely unjustified baseless assumption by modern academia that Socrates was a real man. And this assumption forms a kind of 'lense' through which Plato's philosophy is viewed by the modern world

 

[maxfreakout]

At the same time I don't think it matters if Socrates were real or not.

i very much disagree, i think it is the *whole point* of the entire philosophy, whether he actually existed or not

 

[Nomada]

^ why does it matters?

 

[maxfreakout]

^ why does it matters?

because (i think) it changes the meaning of the philosophy, it solves the paradox of knowing that you don't know

 

[Pariah]

"solves the paradox of knowing that you don't know."

We've already discussed the quote as a misquote (in another thread), and even if that was what socrates meant (which it's not), that only really adresses why it would be *convenient* to think he wasn't real, not why it matters, nor why it serves as any meaningful evidence.

If all your doing is doubting Socrates' existence, then say:

"I doubt that Socrates exists, because...."

Not

(I quote) "Socrates is a fictional character from the mind of Plato"

Its fair to say that what you said is a claim to the non-existence of Socrates, which requires you demonstrate why we should agree, including the requirement that you attack the sources that suggest Socrates was a person: the fact that there are busts of the guy, that it wasn't just one philosopher that wrote about him etc.)

 

[endlessness]

as forkbender already said, socrates was also described by other people appart from plato, so that's evidence enough to at least consider its a valid possibility.

Plato/socrates ideas are interesting way beyond just 'understanding the paradox of knowing that you know nothing'.

BTW, socrates/plato where not the first to say this.. This is a very old idea that many mystics and groups used. Gurdjieff talked about how 'for one to get out of prison, you must first realize you are in prison in the first place'. The prison of the mind, of common knowledge, that also hinduism and buddhism talk about going beyond.

If im not mistaken the expression of 'knowing that you know not' were even written in delfos or some ancient site like that which was before Socrates.

And one last thing about the discussion of whether Socrates existed or not. I take William James' pragmatic stance here. In what practical way will that change anything for you? For me it doesnt in the slightest, it doesnt make the ideas more or less interesting either way.. So Im not gonna worry about this

 

[maxfreakout]

If all your doing is doubting Socrates' existence

i am not doubting his existence, i am just pointing out that there is no evidence that he existed, the only 'Socrates' that is known of, is a character in the writings of other people

Its fair to say that what you said is a claim to the non-existence of Socrates, which requires you demonstrate why we should agree, including the requirement that you attack the sources that suggest Socrates was a person: the fact that there are busts of the guy, that it wasn't just one philosopher that wrote about him etc.)

im not claiming that he didnt exist, i dont know if he existed or not (and i dont know if the flying spaghetti monster exists or not) and neither do you or anybody else, it is totally unfair to insist that i am making a claim that i am emphatically NOT making

there are no sources that suggest Socrates was a person. The fact that there are busts of him does not suggest that he was real (as i already pointed out, there are busts of Zeus and Demeter and numerous other purely mythological figures)

the only 'socrates' that is known of, is the character 'Socrates' from the writings of other people, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Socrates was real. the fact that a character is written about in stories doesnt make him real, many people have written stories about Superman, but that doesnt mean that Superman is a real person does it?

And this same reasoning can be applied to Jesus, Mohammed (arguably), Buddha, Abraham and many other people who are often erroneously assumed to have existed in the flesh

 

[maxfreakout]

as forkbender already said, socrates was also described by other people appart from plato, so that's evidence enough to at least consider its a valid possibility.

i disagree, for the same reason that the fact that numerous people have written stories about Superman doesnt make his existence a 'valid possibility'

Plato/socrates ideas are interesting way beyond just 'understanding the paradox of knowing that you know nothing'.

i agree he said many interesting things, but i also think that this epistemological idea is the central aspect of Socrates' philosophy

And one last thing about the discussion of whether Socrates existed or not. I take William James' pragmatic stance here. In what practical way will that change anything for you? For me it doesnt in the slightest, it doesnt make the ideas more or less interesting either way.. So Im not gonna worry about this

i think the idea that Socrates didnt exist profoundly changes the meaning of much of his philosophy, but in particular the idea that he 'knew that he didnt know'

 

[endlessness]

as forkbender already said, socrates was also described by other people appart from plato, so that's evidence enough to at least consider its a valid possibility.

i disagree, for the same reason that the fact that numerous people have written stories about Superman doesnt make his existence a 'valid possibility'

Plato/socrates ideas are interesting way beyond just 'understanding the paradox of knowing that you know nothing'.

i agree he said many interesting things, but i also think that this epistemological idea is the central aspect of Socrates' philosophy

And one last thing about the discussion of whether Socrates existed or not. I take William James' pragmatic stance here. In what practical way will that change anything for you? For me it doesnt in the slightest, it doesnt make the ideas more or less interesting either way.. So Im not gonna worry about this

i think the idea that Socrates didnt exist profoundly changes the meaning of much of his philosophy, but in particular the idea that he 'knew that he didnt know'

The case of superman is absurdly different, as people didnt write accounts as if he was real..

You say that the burden of proving is in the side of whoever considers his existence to be true.. I say that whoever denies absolutely his existence has the burden of proving beyond doubt that he did not exist. I think you have to recognize one cant prove either way so to assure of his existence or of his inexistence with pretended certainty is in both cases quite presumptuous. One must consider both to be possible and until further notice, work with both hypothesis (if it makes any difference in your life)

Plus, you didnt respond to the fact that this idea that you consider central in his thought is neither his and nor new. and in other cases it didnt have any relation to whether the character was fake or not, and yet is an extremely empowering and at the same time humbling idea. It is also the 'surrendering' of Islam, knowing that one just doesnt know and must give himself to the transcendental.

and also you didnt say in which way it would change your life in a practical term if you found out either way.

 

[maxfreakout]

The case of superman is absurdly different, as people didnt write accounts as if he was real.. .

It is no different, people wrote stories about Superman just the same as people wrote stories about Socrates. what exactly do you mean to say that the dialogues of Socrates were written 'as if he was real'? In both cases(Socrates and Superman), they are just stories

You say that the burden of proving is in the side of whoever considers his existence to be true.

no that isnt what i said, there is simply no way to prove either way, because there is no evidence to prove his existence, and no evidence to disprove his existence

i was making a much more general point, that it is impossible to prve that something non-existent doesnt exist, in ANY case. ie to use Dawkin's famous example, you cannot possibly prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist

the whole concept of proving the non-existence of something non-existent is completely absurd

I say that whoever denies absolutely his existence has the burden of proving beyond doubt that he did not exist.

Nobody is denying the existence of Socrates, but even if they were, it is totally impossible to prove the non-existence of something nonexistent (can you prove that the spaghetti monster doesnt exist? No of course not)

per Occam's razor, the story that posits the least amount of existing entities is the simplest, therefore the burden of proof lies on whoever is positing the existence uneccesary entities because they are making the story more complicated than it needs to be.

I think you have to recognize one cant prove either way so to assure of his existence or of his inexistence with pretended certainty is in both cases quite presumptuous..

i already do recognize this, i totally agree

it is entirely arbitrary and pointless to claim that Socrates either did or didnt exist, you cannot know either way, and there is no evidence pointing either way

One must consider both to be possible and until further notice, work with both hypothesis (if it makes any difference in your life)

i agree, this applies to everything not just the existence of Socrates

Plus, you didnt respond to the fact that this idea that you consider central in his thought is neither his and nor new.

it isnt 'new', Socrates said it (or didnt say it) 3000 years ago.

But it is his, nobody expressed this particular epistemological idea besides Socrates

and also you didnt say in which way it would change your life in a practical term if you found out either way.

it changes the meaning of Plato's philosophy, in a radical and beautifully profound way, the concept of 'widom' in the sense that Plato used it, is a transcendental concept

 

[Forkbender]

the philosophy has a different meaning when you understand it not as coming from a real person but rather a fictional character

the main example is that the claim to 'know that i know nothing' is no longer paradoxical, because there is no 'knower' behind the claim

so removing the assumption of Socrates' historicity is a solution to the apparent paradox of knowing that he didnt know anything

This doesn't make sense. If Socrates were only a character in Plato's dialogues, his claims would be on that level, as a person (albeit fictional). Socrates would be a 'knower' within the limits of this dialogue, while not a knower within the broader limits of the dialogue as a work of art/philosophy. You are confusing these two scopes when you attribute no property of knowledge to Socrates because he doesn't exist, while at the same time his words are true within the dialogue.

Besides that, 'knowing that one doesn't know' is a perfect example of the limitedness of modern English. The Greek has two forms (sophein and gnostein), and both are used in this case with their own meaning. It is a matter of poetic translation, far from the original meaning. A translation truer to the original would be 'I am aware that I know nothing', which isn't paradoxical at all.

this is not 'scientific consensus' in any sense, because this is not a scientific issue but rather it is a historical and philosophical issue, there is no scientific consensus either way. Science is based entirely on observable evidence, but there is no observable evidence at all that Socrates was real

there is only a completely unjustified baseless assumption by modern academia that Socrates was a real man. And this assumption forms a kind of 'lense' through which Plato's philosophy is viewed by the modern world

History is a science. There is no observable evidence that your great-great-great-grandmother was real in your line of argumentation. The assumption is not unjustified/baseless. It is based on different accounts of different writers and philosophers from around the 4th century bc. They talked about Socrates in the same way as they did about other important figures from around the same time of which we do have evidence they existed.

You do have a point however in the idea that the figure of Socrates is mythologized. This is undoubtedly the case, but because this is the case, it doesn't automatically follow that the information we do have isn't based on a historical figure.

 

[magickmumu]

He could be a fictional character, but there is no real proof of this.
Until now I keep all options open.

not only Plato but also Aristophanes and Xenophon wrote about Socrates. Is there any hard evidence Socrates was a fictional character?

There is absolutely zero evidence that Socrates existed

it is impossible to prove that something non-existent, doesnt exist

the onus is entirely on people who think that something/someone DOES exist, to prove that it exists

and it goes against occams's razor to suggest that something exists when there is absolutely no reason, and no evidence to suggest that it does

saying that Socrates existed is little different from saying that the flying spaghetti monster exists

Evidence ?

 

[Pariah]

The analogy of superman is faulty:

There is a lot of evidence that he is fictional - superman is actually said to be fictional - they still put the disclaimer at the beginning / end of films don't they?: "any characters in this film are fictional, any likeness they show to real people is purely coincidental." (or words to that effect).

All arguements for the existence of the spaghetti monster can be shown to have faulty elements (just like intellegent design), and there is a story of the story of the creation of the spaghetti monster - a parody against teaching intelligent design.

"im not claiming that he didnt exist, i dont know if he existed or not"

You used the word "know" in that sentence, you really need make your definition of knowledge very clear to me, because usually not knowing something involves doubt:

"i am not doubting his existence"

Your plea of no evidence falls down with what Fork is talking about in the above post.

Another point to take up would be that if Socrates wasn't Platos Mentor, who was?


"it is totally unfair to insist that i am making a claim that i am emphatically NOT making"

my words were a direct quote from *YOU!*

*You said* that "Socrates is a fictional character from the mind of Plato" but then say that "i dont know if he existed or not."

Is that not just a tad schizophrenic / contradictory? and following from that, isn't the position of either statement weakened beyond hope? How can you say that Socrates is fictional, when you don't know either way? just because it conforms to a set of ideas that appeals to you? Surely then you should say "I *believe* in Socrates as a purely fictional character."

 

[Forkbender]

I think we need to stop arguing about whether or not Socrates was human or fiction.

Let's talk about the idea maxfreakout wants to put out. What else would fall into place if Socrates wasn't a historical figure (accepting the hypothesis for the time being).

 

[maxfreakout]

There is a lot of evidence that he is fictional - superman is actually said to be fictional

well i think Plato may have been saying the same thing about Socrates but in an esoteric way

All arguements for the existence of the spaghetti monster can be shown to have faulty elements (just like intellegent design), and there is a story of the story of the creation of the spaghetti monster - a parody against teaching intelligent design.

there are no arguments for the existence of the spaghetti monster, and similarly there are no arguments for the existence of Socrates. in the case of Socrates, it is purely a baseless assumption that he existed. A story about a person, or a bust of a person, is not evidence that the person existed

"im not claiming that he didnt exist, i dont know if he existed or not"

You used the word "know" in that sentence, you really need make your definition of knowledge very clear to me, because usually not knowing something involves doubt:

i mean know as in 'know it to be true'

neither me, nor you, nor anybody else alive today, knows if socrates existed or not, and there is no evidence either way

Another point to take up would be that if Socrates wasn't Platos Mentor, who was?.

somebody else perhaps? Who was Socrates' mentor?

"it is totally unfair to insist that i am making a claim that i am emphatically NOT making"

my words were a direct quote from *YOU!*

*You said* that "Socrates is a fictional character from the mind of Plato" but then say that "i dont know if he existed or not.".

there are 2 different ways of looking at it, you can understand Plato's dialogues to be a report of a historical event, or you can see them as being a fictional story. there is no real evidence either way

Is that not just a tad schizophrenic / contradictory? and following from that, isn't the position of either statement weakened beyond hope? How can you say that Socrates is fictional, when you don't know either way? just because it conforms to a set of ideas that appeals to you? Surely then you should say "I *believe* in Socrates as a purely fictional character."

socrates might be fictional, or he might be real, these are 2 distinct ways of looking at what Plato's dialogues represent.

NOBODY alive today knows either way, nor has any reason to believe one way or the other, and thereforee it would be totally arbitrary and pointless to say that i believe one way or the other, without a time machine, or some real historical evidence, there is no way of knowing

 

[maxfreakout]

I think we need to stop arguing about whether or not Socrates was human or fiction.

Let's talk about the idea maxfreakout wants to put out. What else would fall into place if Socrates wasn't a historical figure (accepting the hypothesis for the time being).

it completely changes the meaning of what Plato was expressing with his dialogues. There is a hidden meaning which can only be understood by removing the assumption of Socrates' historicity, to do with getting at truth by means of dialogue.

As i said, i think it explains the apparent paradox of knowing that you dont know, the meaning of 'wisdom'

 

[maxfreakout]

Socrates would be a 'knower' within the limits of this dialogue.

do you think that a character in a story can possess knowledge? ie do you have to be a real person to know something?

Besides that, 'knowing that one doesn't know' is a perfect example of the limitedness of modern English. The Greek has two forms (sophein and gnostein), and both are used in this case with their own meaning. It is a matter of poetic translation, far from the original meaning. A translation truer to the original would be 'I am aware that I know nothing', which isn't paradoxical at all..

thanx for that i didnt know this, can you provide the actual quote in Greek?

History is a science. There is no observable evidence that your great-great-great-grandmother was real in your line of argumentation. .

my own existence proves that my great-great-great-grandmother existed

The assumption is not unjustified/baseless. It is based on different accounts of different writers and philosophers from around the 4th century bc. They talked about Socrates in the same way as they did about other important figures from around the same time of which we do have evidence they existed. .

you could apply this argument to any figure from Greek mythology, just because a character is written about by other people, does not indicate that they were not fictional

 

[Forkbender]

my own existence proves that my great-great-great-grandmother existed

Only if you assume that everyone is born from a woman. 8)

you could apply this argument to any figure from Greek mythology, just because a character is written about by other people, does not indicate that they were not fictional

They didn't write about Zeus or Jupiter or Achilles or Agamemnon in the same way as they did about Socrates.

it completely changes the meaning of what Plato was expressing with his dialogues. There is a hidden meaning which can only be understood by removing the assumption of Socrates' historicity, to do with getting at truth by means of dialogue.

explain please. you already said this before, but it doesn't say much without references and explanations.

 

[Nomada]

it completely changes the meaning of what Plato was expressing with his dialogues. There is a hidden meaning which can only be understood by removing the assumption of Socrates' historicity, to do with getting at truth by means of dialogue.

is that hidden hidden meaning?:
Socrates is a Human that constructs logos trough words interchanged individuals in the world. But the material of logos is the word and logos is the subtle print of humanity. Then we don't existed as separated as different individuals and thus we are codded beyond of what any "singular" form may provide.

Then, by extension all distinction are plain formalities and though useful insufficient when presented in front of the geometrical complexity of existence. In other words, since nothing and thus everything are incommensurable oozes; forms for their part, in virtue of being conveyed with meaning and thus boundaries, are determined in themselves and then finite. We don't exist singularly and thus historically, only through language, only through Idea. Then we all don't exist historically, not only Socrates. The trick is...he knew this.


lol. that was a nasty and very bad joke. :lol:
Don't pay much attention to me