Been reading up on a lot of great Absurdist literature and I came across this quote.
"People think the world needs a republic, and they think it needs a new social order, and a new religion, but it never occurs to anyone that what the world really needs, confused as it is by much learning, is a new Socrates."
Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death (1849)
What do you guys think of this quote? Agree or disagree.
Do you think such a person is here, on the way or even possible, and how would we recognize such a person?
Cut to the chase ... whoever it is ... when can we watch them drink the hemlock? For the ignorant ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DloNGc09j_M
England, while it still exists, is the only place I can go on=line where I can encounter intelligence ;-)
I agree, ironically, with your quote. The new Socrates was Nietzsche. The new Plato was Marx. I would argue that the new Aristotle was Russell.
I'm not sure answering every question with another question is the best way to teach. It has it's place depending on context, but there are more effective ways of imparting knowledge most of the time. It wouldn't hurt to have another Socrates. There undoubtedly are some around right now, although I would think they would tend to be annoying. They executed him, didn't they?
Socrates (according to Plato) had a particular theory of education, which explains why he answered questions non-dogmatically. If you wanted a dog-matic answer, you could always ask Diogenes (a guy who came later, I know). Socrates tried to get people to figure out the truth for themselves, he saw himself as a midwife of wisdom (his mother was a midwife) ... not as an oracle of eternal truths. And they did figure out the truth ... they didn't like Socrates ;-(
I think George Carlin would qualify, perhaps, as the new Socrates, but few paid enough attention while he was among us.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2016, 05:59:45 PM
I think George Carlin would qualify, perhaps, as the new Socrates, but few paid enough attention while he was among us.
Lenny Bruce was the new Diogenes.
Now if we could just find a new Archimedes...
I haven't heard of a few of the people mentioned as potential Socrates. In this modern day how do you think a Socrates-like person would even be able to question anything or communicate with the current sociopolitical climate?
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2016, 07:42:02 PM
Now if we could just find a new Archimedes...
Archimedes was a defense contractor who died in defense of his city state. I can relate to that, real well.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 04, 2016, 09:02:18 PM
I haven't heard of a few of the people mentioned as potential Socrates. In this modern day how do you think a Socrates-like person would even be able to question anything or communicate with the current sociopolitical climate?
Interesting problem. I think the level of noise is so high, it would be hard for anyone to hear him/her. Questioning anything just takes skepticism. Being annoying is what every socially involved web site tries to do. And Google would deliberately try to steer you away from finding his URL (put him at the bottom of a search that returns a million hits).
His name is Daniel Dennett.
Socrates was one of the Greek mystics who considered information "dangerous" to the masses. And he was basically a crazy. I do not consider him good for human thought. I prefer Eratosthenes.
There is such a man as you speak of. And his name? Well... and his name is...
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 05, 2016, 11:18:21 PM
Elon Musk?
Psycho plutocrat who got there on tax subsidies?
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 05, 2016, 10:48:25 PM
His name is Daniel Dennett.
Not particularly impressed ... John Searle is better ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 01:49:21 AM
Socrates was one of the Greek mystics who considered information "dangerous" to the masses. And he was basically a crazy. I do not consider him good for human thought. I prefer Eratosthenes.
Greatest ancient geographer ... but I do get your point about Socrates.
I notice a lot of people listing off names, and others dismissing their suggestions with other suggestions. Since the world is so big and connected and as Baruch mentioned, loud, do you think there could be multiple "New Socrates" or has the world moved on from this type of discussion. The world is filled with a lot of vague and often misinterpreted ideals, I get the feeling any "New Socrates" would have a field day with modern civilization, I just can't see them being relevant.
Also considering that they killed the last Socrates, do you think we even need such a person today?
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 06, 2016, 01:22:22 PM
Also considering that they killed the last Socrates, do you think we even need such a person today?
If there hadn't been a Socrates, it would have been necessary to create him, only to kill him ;-)
Like any good joke, with Socrates, you would have had to have been there ... in 410 BCE Athens.
The majority is not interested in intelligence, they are interested in people who agree with them, as such, places like this demand "like" buttons so peeps can get a daily dose of self confidence instead of a slap in the face for being stupid.
I just gave aitm a like to piss him off. :2thumbs:
Quote from: aitm on November 06, 2016, 02:46:24 PM
The majority is not interested in intelligence, they are interested in people who agree with them, as such, places like this demand "like" buttons so peeps can get a daily dose of self confidence instead of a slap in the face for being stupid.
Dogs bite, they don't slap. Arf arf! But bad dogs don't love humans, they are rabid and bite everyone.
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2016, 06:41:47 AM
Not particularly impressed ... John Searle is better ;-)
Pffft. Dan is one of the Horsemen.
Quote from: aitm on November 06, 2016, 02:46:24 PM
The majority is not interested in intelligence, they are interested in people who agree with them, as such, places like this demand "like" buttons so peeps can get a daily dose of self confidence instead of a slap in the face for being stupid.
Don't take away my only joy in life.
Maybe, we'd better remember old Socrates, re-read his questions and try to answer them by our own way? What is love, friendship, courage, beauty, wisdom, truth etc.?
In modern times, all those questions are answered for us by Oprah and Walmart ;-(
Quote from: Eugeny Anatolievich on November 07, 2016, 05:42:14 PM
Maybe, we'd better remember old Socrates, re-read his questions and try to answer them by our own way? What is love, friendship, courage, beauty, wisdom, truth etc.?
Excellent point. How would you define "beauty"?
Quote from: aitm on November 06, 2016, 02:46:24 PM
The majority is not interested in intelligence, they are interested in people who agree with them, as such, places like this demand "like" buttons so peeps can get a daily dose of self confidence instead of a slap in the face for being stupid.
I would say that at least some "likes" are honest and legitimate. I would never give a "like" to gain favor or ingratiate myself. An honest person simply never gives a "like" when they don't think one is deserved. Some people do, though. Sad.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2016, 06:36:42 PM
In modern times, all those questions are answered for us by Oprah and Walmart ;-(
In Russia, we have neither Oprah nor Walmart. So I don't know what they answered.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 08, 2016, 10:58:53 PM
How would you define "beauty"?
Beauty is the limit of advisability in every thing, every body, every construction, every picture, poem, music and so on. Beautiful thing has nothing which is unnecessary.
Quote from: Eugeny Anatolievich on November 09, 2016, 04:08:49 PM
Beauty is the limit of advisability in every thing, every body, every construction, every picture, poem, music and so on. Beautiful thing has nothing which is unnecessary.
That is how experts assess a Bach fugue.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 08, 2016, 11:21:03 PM
I would say that at least some "likes" are honest and legitimate. I would never give a "like" to gain favor or ingratiate myself. An honest person simply never gives a "like" when they don't think one is deserved. Some people do, though. Sad.
As the gruppen-fuhrer of the Like button, you can pre-crime anyone who wants to "like" a post ... that you disagree with? I have never given an undeserved like ... even one's I give you ;-)
Quote from: Eugeny Anatolievich on November 09, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
In Russia, we have neither Oprah nor Walmart. So I don't know what they answered.
Nazdrovye! You aren't missing much.
Oprah-so sorry for your hurt feelings
Walmart-buy more Chinese products
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2016, 06:20:46 PM
I just gave aitm a like to piss him off. :2thumbs:
Yeah, me too! Better pissed off than pissed on, I (and apparently this other guy) always say...
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-s-better-to-be-pissed-off-than-pissed-on-shawn-michaels-62-82-32.jpg)
You can die on your knees ... if you give good head ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 10, 2016, 05:28:39 PM
You can die on your knees ... if you give good head ;-)
What, there's such a thing as
bad head!?
Quote from: Eugeny Anatolievich on November 09, 2016, 04:08:49 PM
Beauty is the limit of advisability in every thing, every body, every construction, every picture, poem, music and so on. Beautiful thing has nothing which is unnecessary.
How do we define what is unnecessary and inadvisable? Those seem very subjective and relative to the needs and wants of the time. Might explain why beauty standards are so starkly different through history.
Quote from: Eugeny Anatolievich on November 09, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
In Russia, we have neither Oprah nor Walmart. So I don't know what they answered.
In Russia, they claim to have invented both Oprah and Walmart. ;)
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 10, 2016, 10:42:23 PM
How do we define what is unnecessary and inadvisable? Those seem very subjective and relative to the needs and wants of the time. Might explain why beauty standards are so starkly different through history.
Great art is like porn ... you can't define it, but you know it when you see it (hear it).
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:17:25 AM
Great art is like porn ... you can't define it, but you know it when you see it (hear it).
Mix the two.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 11, 2016, 01:02:25 PM
Mix the two.
That defines the avant guarde. Guernica is porn to me.
A new Socrates?
Since Kirkegaard's time there have been a number of philosophers who I'd put in the same (top) rank as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Marx and Nietzsche have already been mentioned. Also on my list would be Wittgenstein, Quine and Husserl.
Searle and Dennett are both fine thinkers, but neither of them is in the Socrates class.
Heidegger I actively dislike- in my view a charlatan with deeply unpleasant views. Derrida is in my opinion another charlatan.
Interestingly, the philosopher from this list who had by far and away the biggest impact on the world was Marx. And the impact of Marx was almost wholly negative- disastrously negative, in fact. From that I conclude that the world does not need another Socrates.
Quote from: Duncle on November 12, 2016, 05:55:35 AM
A new Socrates?
Since Kirkegaard's time there have been a number of philosophers who I'd put in the same (top) rank as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Marx and Nietzsche have already been mentioned. Also on my list would be Wittgenstein, Quine and Husserl.
Searle and Dennett are both fine thinkers, but neither of them is in the Socrates class.
Heidegger I actively dislike- in my view a charlatan with deeply unpleasant views. Derrida is in my opinion another charlatan.
Interestingly, the philosopher from this list who had by far and away the biggest impact on the world was Marx. And the impact of Marx was almost wholly negative- disastrously negative, in fact. From that I conclude that the world does not need another Socrates.
Marx dreamed of utopia but horrendously missed the mark, but he certainly did change the world. Imagine if a figure could harness said power for a positive end? Also, I don't know how Socrates like methods would apply to a written political philosophy. I feel like that would almost contradict everything he purportedly stood for.
Quote from: Duncle on November 12, 2016, 05:55:35 AM
A new Socrates?
Since Kirkegaard's time there have been a number of philosophers who I'd put in the same (top) rank as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Marx and Nietzsche have already been mentioned. Also on my list would be Wittgenstein, Quine and Husserl.
Searle and Dennett are both fine thinkers, but neither of them is in the Socrates class.
Heidegger I actively dislike- in my view a charlatan with deeply unpleasant views. Derrida is in my opinion another charlatan.
I have yet to read a dedicated philosopher who wasn't essentially a maundering blowhard.
Interestingly, the philosopher from this list who had by far and away the biggest impact on the world was Marx. And the impact of Marx was almost wholly negative- disastrously negative, in fact. From that I conclude that the world does not need another Socrates.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 12, 2016, 07:59:05 PM
Marx dreamed of utopia but horrendously missed the mark, but he certainly did change the world. Imagine if a figure could harness said power for a positive end? Also, I don't know how Socrates like methods would apply to a written political philosophy. I feel like that would almost contradict everything he purportedly stood for.
Socrates was in your face, not in your scroll. Plato was his greatest pupil, and his greatest sell-out.
Quote from: Baruch on November 13, 2016, 10:17:28 AM
Socrates was in your face, not in your scroll. Plato was his greatest pupil, and his greatest sell-out.
Exactly, I can only imagine what would happen if Marx got in the face of the political and public sphere. The question however, is whether the idea of a Socratic figure has evolved over time.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 13, 2016, 01:15:51 PM
Exactly, I can only imagine what would happen if Marx got in the face of the political and public sphere. The question however, is whether the idea of a Socratic figure has evolved over time.
Plato has used Socrates for his own purpose ... and so has everyone else.
The Hemlock Cup by Bettany Hughes is the real McCoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_xuzTG6l_s
So perhaps Socrates as we know him would've never existed if there wasn't someone taking advantage. So what is the value of selfish individuals?
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 13, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
So perhaps Socrates as we know him would've never existed if there wasn't someone taking advantage. So what is the value of selfish individuals?
Adam Smith says, selfish individuals, acting in competition not group think or conspiracy ... gives the best results. Ideas, people and organizations are allowed to fail under competition. That way you don't have a Plato up on top in the ivory tower, deciding who should win and who should lose (see failure of Japanese 5th generation computing) ... it is based on facts on the ground (Silicon Valley before political corruption kicked in). Like a McDonalds franchise ... you either have a good restaurant, that gets enough traffic or you do not. That is pro bono. The opposite is to force people buy McDonalds products, or at least to distort the free market by encouraging people to buy McDonalds products due to falsification or subsidy ... in that case, even if you run a bad restaurant, you don't get Darwin-ed, but you survive while thinking you are a genius. In a win at all costs society, the temptation to corrupt (subsidies, fraud, coercion) is great. Also larger organizations (Fortune 500) are more likely to be political and bureaucratic like the government. Generally, unsubsidized and unregulated small business, if competitive, is the ideal (Chamber of Commerce before it was corrupted by politics). Modern society however tends toward totalitarianism ... giant governments and giant business combines ... often acting in collusion, consciously or unconsciously, against the common good (as Adam Smith also noticed).
But humanity is a social animal, no man is an island, not even the English ;-) So balance is smart.
Quote from: Baruch on November 13, 2016, 04:14:26 PM
Adam Smith says, selfish individuals, acting in competition not group think or conspiracy ... gives the best results. Ideas, people and organizations are allowed to fail under competition. That way you don't have a Plato up on top in the ivory tower, deciding who should win and who should lose (see failure of Japanese 5th generation computing) ... it is based on facts on the ground (Silicon Valley before political corruption kicked in). Like a McDonalds franchise ... you either have a good restaurant, that gets enough traffic or you do not. That is pro bono. The opposite is to force people buy McDonalds products, or at least to distort the free market by encouraging people to buy McDonalds products due to falsification or subsidy ... in that case, even if you run a bad restaurant, you don't get Darwin-ed, but you survive while thinking you are a genius. In a win at all costs society, the temptation to corrupt (subsidies, fraud, coercion) is great. Also larger organizations (Fortune 500) are more likely to be political and bureaucratic like the government. Generally, unsubsidized and unregulated small business, if competitive, is the ideal (Chamber of Commerce before it was corrupted by politics). Modern society however tends toward totalitarianism ... giant governments and giant business combines ... often acting in collusion, consciously or unconsciously, against the common good (as Adam Smith also noticed).
But humanity is a social animal, no man is an island, not even the English ;-) So balance is smart.
Adam Smith gives us Trump. Unfettered desires and successes do not make things "right" either. Rationality lies between Smith and Marx.
If one knows personal details about Smith and Marx ... they are seen to be gods with clay feet.
Marx included some of Adam Smith's ideas in his economical theory, but he didn't believe in 'invisible hand of market'.
Quote from: Eugeny Anatolievich on November 20, 2016, 04:18:08 PM
Marx included some of Adam Smith's ideas in his economical theory, but he didn't believe in 'invisible hand of market'.
Only an idiot would believe in "hidden hand" unless you mean the Serbian Secret Police (Black Hand). Actually, it was a very early idea of epi-phenomenalism aka self organization of complex systems. Except it is outside the scientific method like multi-universes. It is scientism, not science.
Adam Smith was wrong on a number of things, as was Hegel. Marx borrowed from both, as well as utopian ideas.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 06:24:54 AM
Adam Smith gives us Trump. Unfettered desires and successes do not make things "right" either. Rationality lies between Smith and Marx.
Technically speaking big government and PC culture gave us Trump. Was he allowed to operate as a businessman? Yes. Did he have a shot at the Presidency until recently? No.
Also Marx was crazy.
Quote from: Baruch on November 13, 2016, 04:14:26 PM
Adam Smith says, selfish individuals, acting in competition not group think or conspiracy ... gives the best results. Ideas, people and organizations are allowed to fail under competition. That way you don't have a Plato up on top in the ivory tower, deciding who should win and who should lose (see failure of Japanese 5th generation computing) ... it is based on facts on the ground (Silicon Valley before political corruption kicked in). Like a McDonalds franchise ... you either have a good restaurant, that gets enough traffic or you do not. That is pro bono. The opposite is to force people buy McDonalds products, or at least to distort the free market by encouraging people to buy McDonalds products due to falsification or subsidy ... in that case, even if you run a bad restaurant, you don't get Darwin-ed, but you survive while thinking you are a genius. In a win at all costs society, the temptation to corrupt (subsidies, fraud, coercion) is great. Also larger organizations (Fortune 500) are more likely to be political and bureaucratic like the government. Generally, unsubsidized and unregulated small business, if competitive, is the ideal (Chamber of Commerce before it was corrupted by politics). Modern society however tends toward totalitarianism ... giant governments and giant business combines ... often acting in collusion, consciously or unconsciously, against the common good (as Adam Smith also noticed).
But humanity is a social animal, no man is an island, not even the English ;-) So balance is smart.
Selfishness and competition is certainly a good thing, yet it always leads to winners and losers, and sometimes the winners don't know when to stop rubbing it in. Darwinian liberal poverty and the One-Dimensional Man are also minor side-effects but that's another story.
For any government, legitimacy comes at the of the barrel of a gun. Don't question their legitimacy, unless you can die with the consequences.
There IS a hidden hand in economics. Markets DO respond to groups of unorganized customers. But when there are collusions and oligarchies, the hidden hand does not work very well.
It is not the govt regulations (designed to prevent consumer abuse) that are at fault. It is the loopholes built in to the tax system by powerful lobbies that cause most of the problems.
Get the government out of economics, unless you are French. Only the French can make the bureaucracies run on time (a very slow schedule that).
The hidden hand are the oligarchies. Unless you have faith ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on November 17, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
If one knows personal details about Smith and Marx ... they are seen to be gods with clay feet.
Are there any gods
without clay feet?
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 22, 2016, 05:58:31 PM
Are there any gods without clay feet?
The feet are more stable if they are baked in a hot fire ;-)
Humans, as demi-gods ... we have fleshy feet, sometimes with fungus.
Oh, aren't we having fun, Gus?
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2016, 08:04:59 PM
The feet are more stable if they are baked in a hot fire ;-)
Humans, as demi-gods ... we have fleshy feet, sometimes with fungus.
All deities are humanistic but with greater faults. We lack imagination. Any true deity would be incomprehensible. And I don't mean just "a bit more than us". I mean as a planaria would view us but a google more different.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 05:14:43 AM
All deities are humanistic but with greater faults. We lack imagination. Any true deity would be incomprehensible. And I don't mean just "a bit more than us". I mean as a planaria would view us but a google more different.
Un-Greek. The Greek gods were more human than the Greeks themselves. Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton being prime incarnations of the dalliances of Zeus.