4 ms·

You have most of the data there. I think you just need to read through it again. You will find that Socrates taught the thirty tyrants, that he was a fierce ene

by iofj 11y ago

You have most of the data there. I think you just need to read through it again. You will find that Socrates taught the thirty tyrants, that he was a fierce enemy of democracy (which was most definitely not a reviled body at the time, unless you mean reviled by Socrates and his pupils. It was generally agreed that the democracy was less effective than "something else", but very little agreement on which exact "something else" would be better. For Socrates, morals, as defined by the philosophers (ie. him) was superior). It is true that a while after the coup had happened Socrates at one point refused to cooperate with them. But what happened there was that he made an enemy of one (or perhaps more) of the thirty tyrants, who then challenged him to bring Leon of Salamis for execution (which, to me seems to indicate he was part of the thirty tyrants government, but that isn't the general interpretation). Shortly after that the thirty tyrants were overthrown. Next there was a decision by the new government, that Socrates was not directly guilty, but was never to teach again, never to have students again. He immediately violated it, and after a while there was another incident by his students against the state. They were executed and immediately after so was Socrates. My issue is that while Socrates getting executed "for teaching science", while technically correct, fails to mention that his teaching of science was closely related to a mass murder that happened in Athens, followed by him committing an immediate violation of the outcome of a "court case", which was clearly related to yet another incident, an attack on "parliament". Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching after such events, after one in 20 of the people you knew got executed by his students, and he is involved in an attempt to repeat that experience ? Whilst of course the decision to execute him does not pass a 21st century moral test, don't you think that if this happened in America today that he would disappear behind bars for a few decades ? It is hard, I think, to argue the case that Socrates should have gone free here. I feel leaving this critical context out does disrespect to the story and paints a wholly wrong picture of both who Socrates was and even to an extent leaves out critical context when it comes to his teachings. Socrates believed in there being one correct answer to any and all questions (maybe unknown, but still a singular correct answer, a grand truth), to be provided by philosophers, that had to be imposed on everyone. His disagreement with the thirty tyrants was not the manner of their governing, but the content.

justifier 11y ago
again, i am indifferent to the righteousness of socrates the man he was a fierce enemy of democracy [citation needed] seriously, what are you talking about? democracy the idea? dare i say democracy's platonic ideal? if i oppose a democracy's policy does that mean i oppose democracy? (which was most definitely not a reviled body at the time, unless you mean reviled by Socrates and his pupils [citation needed] show me a source that states the pretyrant governing body that was overthrown that plato states was 'generally condemned' was in truth 'generally accepted'? Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching after such events, after one in 20 of the people you knew got executed by his students well, yes, but that is because i support freedom of speech if you want to make it an argument of militanism then i suppose you would have to show that all of these people were students of socrates, stead solely the one noted as critias, and further that their efforts were weaponised from ideas which were planted and sowed by socrates what things did socrates teach these people that you would actively censor from the public forum? Socrates believed in there being one correct answer to any and all questions (maybe unknown, but still a singular correct answer, a grand truth), to be provided by philosophers, that had to be imposed on everyone. [citation needed] also, if you can explain, if this even were the case, how it demonstrably leads to killing? I feel leaving this critical context out does disrespect to the story and paints a wholly wrong picture can you cite the context i left out? if i did, it was completely unintended and i encourage any greater context you can lend i take grave issue with your editorial exposition stop telling people how they should think and offer up the sources that led you to your conclusions and let people think for themselves
- iofj 11y ago
  Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching after such events, after one in 20 of the people you knew got executed by his students well, yes, but that is because i support freedom of speech If you consider that reasonable then perhaps we simply have a huge difference of opinion here. I would put forward that a hell of a lot of people would object to teaching an ideology after that same group committed mass murder. And by object I mean mobs would hunt them down and kill them (which is pretty much what happened). also, if you can explain, if this even were the case, how it demonstrably leads to killing? It obviously led to killings in that period of history of Athens. Whether this was solely the fault of the ideology, or the man is an open question that cannot ever be answered to any modern standard. In that particular piece of history, however, most people would obviously consider it true, for they just saw the ideology's adherents do it before their very eyes. The standard you're using, innocent until proven guilty, is a standard that would only make it's first appearance in law 6 centuries after these events ... so I would say that applying such a standard here is not a reasonable judgement to make. These people worked from the principle that the majority of free men is always right. The "beyond reasonable doubt" part is more recent still, a set of legal rules that would not be used in court cases until 1800, 2200 year after this case. Yes Socrates was convicted simply on the fact that more people shouted he was guilty than that shouted he was innocent. However this was a very high legal standard for the time that should not be looked down upon. In most places and times during history, a single ruler would simply decide on his gut feeling if the person was guilty, usually without so much as hearing the accused's version of events and extract a far crueler punishment. Socrates was given a chance to talk to the crowds and explain to them why he was not guilty. He could not convince them. That's how justice worked in Athens.

by iofj 11y ago

justifier 11y ago

again, i am indifferent to the righteousness of socrates the man he was a fierce enemy of democracy [citation needed] seriously, what are you talking about? democracy the idea? dare i say democracy's platonic ideal? if i oppose a democracy's policy does that mean i oppose democracy? (which was most definitely not a reviled body at the time, unless you mean reviled by Socrates and his pupils [citation needed] show me a source that states the pretyrant governing body that was overthrown that plato states was 'generally condemned' was in truth 'generally accepted'? Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching after such events, after one in 20 of the people you knew got executed by his students well, yes, but that is because i support freedom of speech if you want to make it an argument of militanism then i suppose you would have to show that all of these people were students of socrates, stead solely the one noted as critias, and further that their efforts were weaponised from ideas which were planted and sowed by socrates what things did socrates teach these people that you would actively censor from the public forum? Socrates believed in there being one correct answer to any and all questions (maybe unknown, but still a singular correct answer, a grand truth), to be provided by philosophers, that had to be imposed on everyone. [citation needed] also, if you can explain, if this even were the case, how it demonstrably leads to killing? I feel leaving this critical context out does disrespect to the story and paints a wholly wrong picture can you cite the context i left out? if i did, it was completely unintended and i encourage any greater context you can lend i take grave issue with your editorial exposition stop telling people how they should think and offer up the sources that led you to your conclusions and let people think for themselves

iofj 11y ago
Would you have let Socrates continue his teaching after such events, after one in 20 of the people you knew got executed by his students well, yes, but that is because i support freedom of speech If you consider that reasonable then perhaps we simply have a huge difference of opinion here. I would put forward that a hell of a lot of people would object to teaching an ideology after that same group committed mass murder. And by object I mean mobs would hunt them down and kill them (which is pretty much what happened). also, if you can explain, if this even were the case, how it demonstrably leads to killing? It obviously led to killings in that period of history of Athens. Whether this was solely the fault of the ideology, or the man is an open question that cannot ever be answered to any modern standard. In that particular piece of history, however, most people would obviously consider it true, for they just saw the ideology's adherents do it before their very eyes. The standard you're using, innocent until proven guilty, is a standard that would only make it's first appearance in law 6 centuries after these events ... so I would say that applying such a standard here is not a reasonable judgement to make. These people worked from the principle that the majority of free men is always right. The "beyond reasonable doubt" part is more recent still, a set of legal rules that would not be used in court cases until 1800, 2200 year after this case. Yes Socrates was convicted simply on the fact that more people shouted he was guilty than that shouted he was innocent. However this was a very high legal standard for the time that should not be looked down upon. In most places and times during history, a single ruler would simply decide on his gut feeling if the person was guilty, usually without so much as hearing the accused's version of events and extract a far crueler punishment. Socrates was given a chance to talk to the crowds and explain to them why he was not guilty. He could not convince them. That's how justice worked in Athens.