Philospher Series
Part 1: Socrates

As I begin this series, let me start with a disclaimer. I am not a PhD, nor have I ever taken more than about two philosophy courses at the college level. However, I understand that many exmos and postmos have had little to no exposure at all to these ideas. So what follows will be the briefest of outlines about each philosopher in the series. Cribbing from Wikipedia and other internet sources, I will try to summarize the basics about each philosopher and then just leave the comments and discussion up to you.

Socrates is known as the father of modern Western philosophy. He was known to have influenced so many other philosophers that I’m not sure I could list them all. I really think he’s pretty much influenced everyone, but it seems his main sphere of influence was on Plato, Aristotle, and then Antisthenes. It seems to me that each of these philosophers took an idea or three from Socrates and thought it over, talked it over, taught it, re-learned it, and so forth until their own philosophies were developed from ideas born in Socratic discussions.

We don’t have writings from Socrates, per se; most of what we know about him is through the writings of Plato (next in our series). This is what is known as the Socratic problem.

From Wikipedia: “The Socratic problem refers to the difficult or impossible nature of determining what information from antiquity accurately reflects the views and attributes of the historical Socrates. Although Socrates—who was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues—was a genuine historical figure, it is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character of Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.”

Socratic paradoxes
Many of the beliefs traditionally attributed to the historical Socrates have been characterized as "paradoxical" because they seem to conflict with common sense.

The following are among the so-called Socratic Paradoxes:[27]
• No one desires evil.
• No one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly.
• Virtue—all virtue—is knowledge.
• Virtue is sufficient for happiness.
•
The phrase Socratic paradox can also refer to a self-referential paradox, originating in Socrates' phrase, "I know that I know nothing noble and good”. I think this idea is very important to consider in the context of emerging from Mormonism because it is the exact opposite of how we’ve been trained to think. So now the challenge becomes to empty our minds – to unlearn everything we’ve already learned – in order to fairly and objectively consider the ideas and philosophies presented elsewhere.

Some of Socrates’ beliefs, many of which fly in the face of what Mormonism taught:

• Socrates believed wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better. Do you agree with him about that? Why or Why not?

• Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth. What do you think of the idea that developing relationships is more important than anything else?

• He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace. Do you think he was right about that? Why or why not? What other ways might be more effective for people to grow together as a community?

• The idea that there are certain virtues formed a common thread in Socrates' teachings. These virtues represented the most important qualities for a person to have, foremost of which were the philosophical or intellectual virtues. What do you think the most important virtues are? Why are they most important?

• It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand", making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. That is an earthshattering idea in context of our modern political system that believes anyone with enough money to run for office should be qualified to govern others. How do you think politics would be different if we stuck to Socrates’ ideals?

• Because of that, Socrates refused to pursue conventional politics; he often stated he could not look into other's matters or tell people how to live their lives when he did not yet understand how to live his own. He believed he was a philosopher engaged in the pursuit of Truth, and did not claim to know it fully.

• Perhaps one of his most ubiquitous legacies is the Socratic Method, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

I highly, strongly encourage this form of discussion when engaging with TBMs and other fundamentalists. One hallmark of Socratic questioning is that typically there is more than one "correct" answer, and more often, no clear answer at all. From Wikipedia: "The primary goal of the Socratic method in the law school setting is not to answer usually unanswerable questions, but to explore the contours of often difficult legal issues and to teach students the critical thinking skills they will need as lawyers."

One can see how this method could prove especially useful when dealing with brainwashed cult members. Using this method helps you turn the conversation from something adversarial to something closer to a genial discussion.

Very interesting.

About the Socratic Method, I find that it encourages unequal dialog. It is based on drilling down to the basest issue instead of allowing superficial non sequiturs. The problem being that a Mormon, or most people for that matter don't like their statements being dismissed, even if the dismissal will expand the discussion.

If pursued this series could bring about real healing for some of the members of this forum.
Openness of mind through intellectual interchange can bring about the internal healing from the emotional illness that sanctimonious, hypocritical, bigotry has caused.

Dogzilla Please ccontinue this!!!

Thank you so much for taking time to put this together. I'm looking forward to reading more and seeing some discussion.

On a side note, I have a feeling its only a matter of time the atheists start asserting that Socrates never existed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2013 07:16PM by thingsithink.

Now, that's just silly. Why would atheists (of which I am one) assert that documented, published, corroborative philosophers wouldn't exist? You do realize that philosopher ≠ diety, right? The two are not the same thing at all. We can PROVE a philosopher existed (with the possible exception of Socrates) because you know, they wrote stuff. And published stuff. And they knew people, who wrote about them (mostly critique). Also, philosophers simply wrote about ideas; they didn't drop commandments from on high and tell other people what the rules of life were.

I think you are trying to be silly but just in case.


Why would atheists argue that? What does atheism have to do with Socrates existence?

"What does atheism have to do with Socrates existence?"

Good point. I'm getting saviors and philosophers mixed up. Sorry. :)

Well then, just so you know, Socrates saved my life.

Leaving Mormonism was a huge blow to my worldview I really did feel like a kite in the wind. Socrates provided a nice place to ground myself.

I'm very pleased to see a philosophy series on the board.

I encourage anyone unfamiliar with Socrates to read the Euthyphro dialogue. It is badass to put it academically.

I love the podcast "History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps". Learning about early philosophers (I'm only 55 episodes in, so we're still in the early years) helped as I began my journey out of Mormonism. I can't even really express why. Perhaps it was this idea that people have been formulating ideas about self, God, the universe, existence, etc. long before Christianity and well apart from Judaism. Perhaps it was that so many of the clearly non-LDS ideas rang true. Perhaps it was that in learning about philosophy I learned more about how to question the status quo. Whatever the case, I think you're right that there is a lot to be learned by studying these old Greek dudes.

Ooo, I'll have to check out that podcast -- that would be a good thing to listen to while I'm walking the dog. This is going to take some research, which is a bit intimidating, knowing I've committed myself to a lot of work.

But I just wanted to say: We will be looking at a lot more than just the old Greek dudes. I just started there because most Philosophy 101 courses start there. We're going to look at European philosophers, Asian/Eastern philosophers, and modern and American philosophers.

I should have a book by the time this is over and done with.

Also I will start posting links to further reading in each thread, so if anyone wants to learn more, you'll have a shortcut.

For starters, there are two major encyclopedias of philosophy that will explain in much more detail than I will have the time and space for. Feel free to jump ahead:

The Stanford site: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
The Routledge site: http://www.rep.routledge.com/LOGIN?sessionid=132b9895d54080a3a5ec89041023d6b0&authstatuscode=400
(This takes you to a log in page, and it appears you must have an account to access content. I have requested a quote for an account.)


Here's a link to a summary of Plato's Euthyphro dialogue. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-shorter/#13

And here is the actual dialogue:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Damn, Dogzilla. Just getting all those links takes some time, so thank you for the information and the links. This is a good thing for people like me who have started personal-study projects like this in the past but get off-course because of life's interruptions and emergencies.

Thanks for the podcast suggestion, ck.

I think the series of posts that you are proposing will be very interesting. Most of us will be reading with a different mindset than we had when we read these ideas previously. As a TBM I learned everything through an LDS filter. If it fit or reinforced church teachings it was kept. Sometimes it was turned into a poster or vinyl lettering on the wall. If it didn't reinforce church teachings it was discarded as the philosophy of man.

It will be interesting to see what I discarded the first time around.

Yeah, Plato is going to be tricky. There's so much. You could build an entire course just around him, so it's going to be tough to boil him down to the most salient points. That's why I'm going to post "for further reading links" and I encourage everyone who will be following this series to take a few minutes to follow some of them.

This is a great topic for people coming out of mormonism. They are trained to think that there isn't much thinking to be done when it comes to thinking. Many of these ideas will be a surprise to some people. They will seem new and radical. I think there will be some that will be shocked to find out that many of these ideas have been around for thousands of years.

If you are coming out of a situation where the thinking has been done for you, you may feel quite lost. Who will think for you now? The answer is: YOU will now get to think for yourself! A very scary proposition for some.

This study may be a big help. It's starting at the beginning or point A. There will be a lot to think about if you've never thought for yourself.

It may interest readers to know that Socrates lived from 469 BC to 399 BC.

That's a long long time before Christianity was even a thought.

...they have acquaintances with whom they practice the virtue of friendship.

;-}

The interesting thing about Socrates is that we even know a thing or two about his wife, if I remember correctly. And let's not forget that he was the archetypal drinker of the Kool-Aid...

Ah, so much to discuss in so little time. I applaud your effort and look forward to the next installments but I do not envy you for the task at hand.

Great post. The idea of Socrates in seeking virtue is much different than LDS Inc's emphasis on judging "goodness" based on following rules and the dictates of one of the current 15 liars. Some posts on this webpage encourage honesty and virtue more than you will ever see in the Ensign.

Its amazing how the church gives lip service to virtue, but focus's on the cash. The more money and the check marks the higher you get in VIP Heaven (from Brother Jake). It has little to do with Jesus (patience, charity etc..).

We need Socrates for Pres not Mitt.

Can't wait for a Plato's cave post. Millions of Mo's are snug in the cave, and lots of people on this post have found the way out.

Yep. That's coming next. With Star Wars references!

• Socrates believed wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better. Do you agree with him about that? Why or Why not?

A: Nope, why would people try to hide their own wrongdoings if they were ignorant of them. For example child abuse.


• Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth. What do you think of the idea that developing relationships is more important than anything else?

A: I believe in neither
“You show me a lazy prick who's lying in bed all day, watching TV, only occasionally getting up to piss, and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any trouble.” --George Carlin



• He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace. Do you think he was right about that? Why or why not? What other ways might be more effective for people to grow together as a community?

A: I am a loner, so maybe this one does not apply to me.

• The idea that there are certain virtues formed a common thread in Socrates' teachings. These virtues represented the most important qualities for a person to have, foremost of which were the philosophical or intellectual virtues. What do you think the most important virtues are? Why are they most important?

A: I think compassion and honesty are good virtues. Its important to have empathy and to be truthful. It's definitely good to understand Epistemology, since some people will just repeat a phrase about knowledge and not know what it actually means. We all know who they are.

• It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand", making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. That is an earthshattering idea in context of our modern political system that believes anyone with enough money to run for office should be qualified to govern others. How do you think politics would be different if we stuck to Socrates’ ideals?

A: How is it compatible with our democratic system? It's obvious that the masses can't select the wises person -- if you look back in history. How do we decide who is the wise philosopher or a sophist? I guess we have to live with the rich running the show.

Here is more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q34MHpBu0Oo