He has traits of both the far-left and the far-right, and he is one of the biggest figures in the Western mythos of "Wise Men".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk)
To American conservatives of the red-capped variety, Marxism is like George Soros - he's underneath every bed and in every closet.
Apparently, Marxism existed long before Marx and even today is still as strong as ever despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the gradual transitioning of the few communist countries that remained to mixed economies.
In a couple years, these geniuses may even try to produce a list of 205 suspected cultural marxists working for the State Department.
There is, of course, no such thing as "cultural Marxism". It's just a term made up to make gullible idiots scared of people with dark skinned and who speak scary-sounding languages.
Actually, cultural Marxism was cooked up by dead old white men.
Frankfurt School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School)
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 18, 2018, 01:54:22 AM
To American conservatives of the red-capped variety, Marxism is like George Soros - he's underneath every bed and in every closet.
Apparently, Marxism existed long before Marx and even today is still as strong as ever despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the gradual transitioning of the few communist countries that remained to mixed economies.
In a couple years, these geniuses may even try to produce a list of 205 suspected cultural marxists working for the State Department.
Marx copied Robespierre. The Russian Revolution was a copy of the French Revolution.
Just nuke Paris already?
Quote from: Atheon on August 18, 2018, 01:59:11 AM
There is, of course, no such thing as "cultural Marxism". It's just a term made up to make gullible idiots scared of people with dark skinned and who speak scary-sounding languages.
There is no such thing as Republicans ... just a made up term created by gullible Democrats.
Death to the Communists! Call them what you will. The millions they killed mostly in their home countries, call out for their blood!
Apparently, they don't teach history anymore in schools. Down the memory hole.
Who controls the past, controls the future. - Who controls the present controls the past. - George Orwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9I0QhV08w
On the OP ... read the book by The Hemlock Cup by historian Bettany Hughes. Over 500 pages of scholarship. One of my favorite "feminist" historians. Well only that because she happens to be a woman, not because the is a Leftist. The real Athens, the real Socrates. She did a nice video too ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPnUK176AR0
Sparta rightly feared Athenian liberalism (Sparta being arch-conservative).
The 5th century BCE revolution ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCrn-1jUOP8
Keramaicos ... a cemetery outside the Athenian walls, been there. Ms Hughes is an atheist BTW.
Quote from: Atheon on August 18, 2018, 01:59:11 AM
There is, of course, no such thing as "cultural Marxism". It's just a term made up to make gullible idiots scared of people with dark skinned and who speak scary-sounding languages.
The term comes from German dissidents uncomfortable with existing capitalist, fascist or communist systems. Many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the 20th century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development. Note that they weren't fascist, either.
I think what they were trying to get at was "social democracy", where basic requirements such as utilities, communications, roads, schools, etc were out of the control of capitalists, but not also handed off to communistic 5-year plans and such. Sort of betwixt and between capitalism and communism, but they hadn't developed the details of an ideology.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 12, 2018, 01:28:32 AM
The term comes from German dissidents uncomfortable with existing capitalist, fascist or communist systems. Many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the 20th century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development. Note that they weren't fascist, either.
I think what they were trying to get at was "social democracy", where basic requirements such as utilities, communications, roads, schools, etc were out of the control of capitalists, but not also handed off to communistic 5-year plans and such. Sort of betwixt and between capitalism and communism, but they hadn't developed the details of an ideology.
Euro-Communism is better than Russian Communism? That is why we are throwing the EU under the bus. It isn't worth defending.
The ancients on lawlessness ...
“Oh where is the noble face of modesty, or the strength of virtue, now that blasphemy is in power and men have put justice behind them, and there is no law but lawlessness, and none act with fear of the gods?â€
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis
This is what we are becoming.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2018, 07:13:56 PM
The ancients on lawlessness ...
“Oh where is the noble face of modesty, or the strength of virtue, now that blasphemy is in power and men have put justice behind them, and there is no law but lawlessness, and none act with fear of the gods?â€
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis
This is what we are becoming.
Quote from people who thought slavery was good, thought Gods created mayhem and tortured people with their power, and considered anyone who didn't speak their language were "bar-bar-ians" (as an insult) because they didn't make sense to THEM!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 07, 2018, 03:01:01 AM
Quote from people who thought slavery was good, thought Gods created mayhem and tortured people with their power, and considered anyone who didn't speak their language were "bar-bar-ians" (as an insult) because they didn't make sense to THEM!
Yes, lets virtue signal ... you are Jesus ... who knew?
Do you have any other bigotries to share?
Funny this should come up now. I've been re-reading Plato's Socratic writings trying to discern a common theme throughout them.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 12, 2018, 08:55:24 PM
Funny this should come up now. I've been re-reading Plato's Socratic writings trying to discern a common theme throughout them.
My aren't you ambitious. I have been re-reading The Republic and some others, these past couple years. Don't forget Xenophon's version ... his Apology and his Symposium. They have a contrast to the versions by Plato.
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2018, 09:55:29 PM
My aren't you ambitious. I have been re-reading The Republic and some others, these past couple years. Don't forget Xenophon's version ... his Apology and his Symposium. They have a contrast to the versions by Plato.
I am forgetting Xenophon's version. I'm interested in the common theme of Plato's Socrates.
If I'm going to branch out, I might as well include Aristophanes' version.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 12, 2018, 11:18:21 PM
I am forgetting Xenophon's version. I'm interested in the common theme of Plato's Socrates.
If I'm going to branch out, I might as well include Aristophanes' version.
You are the one true voice of reason here. You must keep away most of the time, for sanity's sake.
There is a whole debate, on the early Plato vs the later Plato. Plato's agenda was quite different from that of Socrates.
I would enjoy you posting on this, in the philosophy section, if you are so inclined.
The Euthyphro is congenial to atheists in a way that the Phaedo is not.
Just getting done with a revision/review on ancient Greek (language).
To what extent do you see, the common Greek culture of that time, as being important framing? Aka diachronic. Or do you take the modern synchronic view (and thus assume Plato's forms are real).
There's a lot of questions in there that, even though I've read through them before, I'm not ready to answer. I will give this much. Plato's Socrates was a metaphysical essentialist. I'm an epistemological essentialist. I do not agree that Plato's forms are real.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 13, 2018, 01:51:13 PM
There's a lot of questions in there that, even though I've read through them before, I'm not ready to answer. I will give this much. Plato's Socrates was a metaphysical essentialist. I'm an epistemological essentialist. I do not agree that Plato's forms are real.
I understand what you said. As far as Socrates goes, it all depends on what Mystery Cult he may be belonged too, Orphic or Eleusis or nothing. Plato learned his metaphysics from Archytus, who learned it from Pythagoras. Socrates' elenchus however resembles Parmenides (and a named dialog of that name) ... but Parmenides himself was something of a hierophant in the style of Pythagoras.
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2018, 09:55:29 PM
My aren't you ambitious. I have been re-reading The Republic and some others, these past couple years. Don't forget Xenophon's version ... his Apology and his Symposium. They have a contrast to the versions by Plato.
Right. And let's not forget...
"Socrates, who himself was apparently gifted with precognitive perception, attributed his abilities to the aid of a personal daemon, which then meant demigod and not (evil) demon. In the Theagetes, Plato makes Socrates say:
By favour of the Gods, I have, since my childhood, been attended by a semi-divine being whose voice from time to time dissuades me from some undertaking, but never directs me what I am to do. You know Charmides the son of Glaucon. One day he told me that he intended to compete at the Nemean games. I tried to turn Charmides from his design, telling him, "While you were speaking, I heard the divine voice. Go not to Nemea." He would not listen. Well, you know he has fallen."
Yeah, that sure seems rational...
So ... I said I was looking for a common theme in Plato's Socratic writings. I think I have found it.
"Why do you think you can think?"
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 31, 2020, 10:01:47 PM
So ... I said I was looking for a common theme in Plato's Socratic writings. I think I have found it.
"Why do you think you can think?"
Isn't one of the themes of the dialogs, about how people think they know when they don't? One can have confirmation bias in a crowd of one.
I'm not talking epistemology. I think Socrates encouraged questioning so that he could convince people they don't actually know anything and should just leave the thinking to the philosopher kings.
"Why do you think you can think? You can't think. Let me demonstrate. Don't you feel silly thinking you know anything?"
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 31, 2020, 11:13:53 PM
I'm not talking epistemology. I think Socrates encouraged questioning so that he could convince people they don't actually know anything and should just leave the thinking to the philosopher kings.
"Why do you think you can think? You can't think. Let me demonstrate. Don't you feel silly thinking you know anything?"
Plato thought this (The Republic). To what extent is The Republic reflective of actual Socrates? I don't know. But if it was his ideas, they were right to execute him. Plato got off easy.
You guys should check the doxographic texts on this specific literature, if you haven't done it. I believe you will enjoy it more intensely. Infact, another dimension about this universe will open. It's amazing fun.
There are doxographic enycylopedias with sections on these philosophers. I understand the interest on Socrates which I share, but I'd reccomend to go back around a hundred years and read on Parmenides to start. Esp. if you want to dive in Plato.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 01, 2020, 08:22:42 AM
You guys should check the doxographic texts on this specific literature, if you haven't done it. I believe you will enjoy it more intensely. Infact, another dimension about this universe will open. It's amazing fun.
There are doxographic enycylopedias with sections on these philosophers. I understand the interest on Socrates which I share, but I'd reccomend to go back around a hundred years and read on Parmenides to start. Esp. if you want to dive in Plato.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-ancient/
A product of the German academic/classicism of the 19th century. Didn't that drive Nietzsche mad? ;-)
I like The Hemlock Cup and Helen of Troy by Bettany Hughes. Have you read those?
Some great quotes ...
"The classic critical theory from the Frankfurt School. The goal of critical theory is to separate people from their heritage, culture, language, religion, and family ties so that they are more susceptible to embracing international Marxism." ... great summary by another poster ...
"We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us." - Vladimir Lenin
"Truth is the most precious thing. That's why we should ration it" - Vladimir Lenin
"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?" - Vladimir Lenin
"Antifa is the world’s most ‘fascist Orwellian organisation’" ... Germany in the 20s and 30s ... an international terrorist organization. Global warming protestors are aligned with AntiFa.
I think this quote from the Republic sheds some light on Socrates' (or at least Plato's) view on a communitarian regime.
Quote
Shall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves what
ought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in the
organization of a State, â€"what is the greatest good, and what is
the greatest evil, and then consider whether our previous
description has the stamp of the good or of the evil? ...
Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and
plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the
bond of unity? ...
And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and
pains â€"where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same
occasions of joy and sorrow? ...
Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State
is disorganized â€"when you have one half of the world triumphing
and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the
city or the citizens? ...
Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the
use of the terms ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’ ‘his’ and ‘not his.’ ...
And is not that the best-ordered State in which the greatest number
of persons apply the terms ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ in the same way
to the same thing?
Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of the
individual â€"as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt,
the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a center and forming
one kingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and
sympathizes all together with the part affected, and we say that the
man has a pain in his finger; and the same expression is used about
any other part of the body, which has a sensation of pain at
suffering or of pleasure at the alleviation of suffering.
http://pinkmonkey.com/dl/library1/republic.pdf
A shorter summary (I was reading The Republic in 2018) ...
Everyone should stick to what they are good at. Sculptors and potter decorators are not politicians. Politicians are good at politics, nobody else is. And politicians shouldn't interfere with other skill sets. So democracy is a big no-no. If you are lucky enough to have competent politicians, then the Public needs to shut up and get back to sculpting and pottery decorating. That is the first rule. The second rule is how do we obtain competent politicians? The Guardians. A lot like Thomas Jefferson proposed for why scholarships should be made available to the University of Virginia ... talent will rise, but you don't know from where. You identify it early, and direct it into where the talent can best serve. If your natural talent is politics, then you need to be assisted and directed to take a course of training that will maximize that talent.
The people Socrates is speaking against, Thrasymachus et al ... believe in democracy (rule by incompetents) or in tyranny (rule by violence). From Socrates' perspective, democracy was a cheap trick by Cleisthenes (508 BCE) to extend the effective franchise so that his opponents, a narrow land owning and mercantile oligarchy, could be overcome (because they created internecine conflict internal to Athens). Having done this, the People needed to be persuaded to do the right thing by oratory (Peitho is the goddess of persuasion) ... at least in the common mind, this is a religious act. Pericles was the early master of this (later Isocrates and Demosthenes). The events of Socrates' life told him that tyranny was wrong (Peisistratus was the most notable Athenian tyrant) and that democracy was wrong (Cleon was the most notable demagogue). A tyrant, in Greek, is not as negative as it is in English. It simply means rule by one man, not a committee of oligarchs or an assembly of free men. Peisistratus was responsible for the epic poetry contest in Athens, the resulted in the "received text" of the Illiad and Odyssey. Unfortunately, this two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus wanted to succeed him, and didn't have his talent and chaos resulted. Hipparchus was assassinated over a gay love triangle. Hippias turned paranoid and repressive. The Athenian oligarchs called in King Cleomenes I of Sparta, to force the end of his regime, and Hippias went into exile.
It was shortly after that, that Cleisthenes used the mob to end the resumed chaos of the oligarchs that Peisistratus had ended. Hippias went on to the Persian court of King Darius I, and was instrumental in getting the Persian fleet/army to land at Marathon, in a bid to restore him to power, to end the hostile Athenian/Spartan policy of undermining the Persian Empire in Asia Minor, including the looting and burning of Sardes. Sardes was a source of wealth, the capital of the Lydian Kingdom, which was conquered by King Cyrus in this same period. Lydia and neighboring Greek sea coast colonies (Ionia and Aeolia) were the originators of coinage.
Basically the whole democratic period from 508-399 BCE was a disaster for Athens and for humanity (as seen millennia later by us). Except for a brief period of leadership by Themistocles and later by Pericles, the average politician got the assembly (at the Pnyx) to do one folly after another. The worst being Alcibiades (who was prominent after Cleon, who died in combat at Amphipolis of his own stupidity) ... who led the Athenians to the disastrous idea of invading Sicily and taking Syracuse. Folly continued right down to the day that Athens, which had to import its food, was starved out by Spartan blockade (who by this time had their own navy, courtesy of the Persians). Alcibiades was one of Socrates' younger lovers and the treason of Alcibiades is what got Socrates executed "guild by association".
There were a few decades of Athens as a lesser version, in the decades after Socrates was executed, under Isocrates and Demosthenes. But by this time King Phillip of Macedon and his son Alexander, brought back monarchy in a big way, and not even Sparta ever recovered from that. Athens was a dependency from then on until the modern era.
I am a long time fan of the classics (Greece and Rome). I will never drink the last drop from that bottomless well.
You should read Nietzshe's criticism of Platonism in Twilight of the idols, if you haven't already.
Quote
In my own case this disrespectful thought, that the great sages are
declining types, first occurred to me precisely in regard to an instance
where learned and unlearned prejudice most strongly opposes it: I recognized Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decay, as instruments of the
Greek dissolution, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (Birth of Tragedy,
1872). That consensus sapientiumâ€"this I grasped better and betterâ€"dem-
-onstrates least of all that they were right about what they agreed on.
Instead, it demonstrates that they themselves, these wisest ones, were
somehow in physiological agreement, so that they took the same negative
stance toward lifeâ€"and had to take it.
Judgments, value judgments about life, for or against, can in the final
analysis never be true; they have value only as symptoms, they can be considered only as symptomsâ€"in themselves, such judgments are stupidities. One absolutely must reach out and try to grasp this astounding
finesse, that the value of life cannot be assessed. Not by the living, since they
are parties to the dispute; in fact, they are the objects of contention, and
not the judgesâ€"and not by the dead, for another reason.â€"Thus, when
philosophers see a problem in the value of life, this even amounts to an
objection to them, a question mark attached to their wisdom, an unwisdom.â€"What? And all these great sagesâ€"are we saying they weren’t only
décadents, but they weren’t even wise to begin with?â€"But here I come
back to the problem of Socrates.
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Nietzsche_files/Friedrich-Nietzsche-Twilight-of-the-Idols-or-How-to-Philosophize-With-the-Hammer-Translated-by-Richard-Polt.pdf
I work by association, analogically, metaphorically.
So ... "Instead, it demonstrates that they themselves, these wisest ones, were somehow in physiological agreement, so that they took the same negative stance toward lifeâ€"and had to take it." ... without looking plainly at the reality of presumed pederastry between Socrates and Plato, or between Plato and Aristotle (as also revealed in Gnostic initiation in Classical times, and hinted at in the NT) we can't grasp what is going on ... but pearl clutching and averting our gaze like Queen Victoria ... one would not be able to tie this into gay alienation, would one?
"Alienation" is more than just economic, political or cultural. It can be the default psyche of many in society that don't have a "proper fit". On the other hand, if Leonardo hadn't been gay, if Michelangelo hadn't been gay ... would they have had any daemon like Socrates?
For me Freud looms large, along with Nietzsche and Marx in defining the 19th century ... a breakdown of agricultural and aristocratic traditional life we are still struggling with. The original statues were gaily painted, not pure white marble that Mozart shit out in his struggle for originality. What of Mozart's alcoholism?
Please share as you like, my goal is to be a bit like Demosthenes, to find people smarter and more interesting than myself, and then sit down and listen. But you must be aware that I am more Dionysian than Apollonian, much to the annoyance of most people here. With books, I have access to the smartest and most interesting, but a living book (Fahrenheit 451 or logos) is the most interesting of all. A book by a dead author is just an "exquisite corpse" ...
https://www.codrescu.com/exquisite-corpse/
A thought in time of Covid ...
I have to be immortal, because it will take that long to read everything worth reading ;-))