3 ms·

The point of Plato's dialogues (whether fictional, based on a real-story or otherwise) is to encourage thought and not to forward a conclusion with the aim to s

The point of Plato's dialogues (whether fictional, based on a real-story or otherwise) is to encourage thought and not to forward a conclusion with the aim to stop thought. I encourage people not to outsource their own thought to Wikipedia (or other sources). As the comment I was responding to suggested, ostracization is ancient. Ancient enough that it is the topic of one of the most famous dialogues by one of the most famous philosophers. I will add that the Apology is quite short and freely available online. It is worth the quick read, Then, as I suggested, I encourage people to deeply think about why Socrates chose death (rather than accept quick answers in HN comments).

alt227 1y ago
Can you please point me to the text where Socrates chooses death over exhile? I have read Apology of Socrates in its entirety[0] and a few text analysis and I can find no evidence of this. It seems to me that Socrates suggested a fine[1], and it was his prosecuters which argued for death[2] [0] https://chs.harvard.edu/primary-source/plato-the-apology-of-socrates-sb/ https://chs.harvard.edu/primary-source/plato-the-apology-of-... [1] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D36b https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... [2] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D38b https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
- zoogeny 1y ago
  He states that he won't accept it as part of his argumentation (See passages 37c, 37d): > And if I say exile (and this may possibly be the penalty which you will affix) One commentary I read suggested that it wasn't uncommon for political opponents to bring these kinds of charges against people in order to silence them. The idea being the accused would end up groveling and begging for their lives, promising to hold their tongues. It is assumed by the reader that Socrates could have done this and used his military service as a form of pathos. This passage implies that he will do neither, beg for clemency nor accept exile. One could read the passage as Socrates giving up hope in humanity, for he goes on: > I must indeed be blinded by the love of life if I were to consider that when you, who are my own citizens, [37d] cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would want to have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. But, as I have implied, seeking simple answers in Plato is literally going against the point. edit, also 38e: > But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defense, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death.
  - alt227 1y ago
    Sorry I dont agree with this analysis. There is no need to try to read between the lines of Socrates intentions here when there is very specific passages which state them: > And so the man proposes the penalty of death. > So I propose a fine
    - zoogeny 1y ago
      The man proposing the sentence is Meletus (37b): > Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? Which is to say, the plaintiff. No different than in court today where the prosecution asks the court for a sentence that is up to the judge to decide. And just like our own courts the defense can offer a counter proposal, which Plato goes into a discussion why he won't do that (well, he proposes a fine which would clearly not satisfy the crime he was accused of). The entire next passages are his reasons rejecting the likely mercies he could be offered (and would be expected to plead for). Just like making a plea for a guilty sentence comes with the expectation of a potentially lighter sentence in our own court systems, a plea for extenuating circumstances during sentencing is often made by the defense. For example, an elderly person requiring care may avoid prison and plead for home arrest. Now imagine the circumstance where pre-sentencing, facing a recommendation of the death penalty from the prosecution, the defendant stands before the judge and explains in great detail why he won't accept any of the potentially lesser sentences he might get, rejecting them one by one. That is explicitly what Plato is showing Socrates to have done. Consider: does it makes sense to argue against a more lenient sentence when your life is on the line, especially when it is likely you would receive it? Why would Socrates seemingly act against his own interests?
      - alt227 1y ago
        > The man proposing the sentence is Meletus Yes, this is what I originally stated, that it is his prosecuters arguing for death. You seem to be ignoring the passages where he explicitly suggests a fine as the sentence, however you may also argue that he does this in jest/sarcasm. Yes he argues against exile etc, but in no way does he ever suggest death is a prefered option in my opinion.

alt227 1y ago

Can you please point me to the text where Socrates chooses death over exhile? I have read Apology of Socrates in its entirety[0] and a few text analysis and I can find no evidence of this. It seems to me that Socrates suggested a fine[1], and it was his prosecuters which argued for death[2] [0] https://chs.harvard.edu/primary-source/plato-the-apology-of-socrates-sb/ https://chs.harvard.edu/primary-source/plato-the-apology-of-... [1] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D36b https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... [2] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D38b https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...

zoogeny 1y ago
He states that he won't accept it as part of his argumentation (See passages 37c, 37d): > And if I say exile (and this may possibly be the penalty which you will affix) One commentary I read suggested that it wasn't uncommon for political opponents to bring these kinds of charges against people in order to silence them. The idea being the accused would end up groveling and begging for their lives, promising to hold their tongues. It is assumed by the reader that Socrates could have done this and used his military service as a form of pathos. This passage implies that he will do neither, beg for clemency nor accept exile. One could read the passage as Socrates giving up hope in humanity, for he goes on: > I must indeed be blinded by the love of life if I were to consider that when you, who are my own citizens, [37d] cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would want to have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. But, as I have implied, seeking simple answers in Plato is literally going against the point. edit, also 38e: > But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defense, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death.
- alt227 1y ago
  Sorry I dont agree with this analysis. There is no need to try to read between the lines of Socrates intentions here when there is very specific passages which state them: > And so the man proposes the penalty of death. > So I propose a fine
  - zoogeny 1y ago
    The man proposing the sentence is Meletus (37b): > Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? Which is to say, the plaintiff. No different than in court today where the prosecution asks the court for a sentence that is up to the judge to decide. And just like our own courts the defense can offer a counter proposal, which Plato goes into a discussion why he won't do that (well, he proposes a fine which would clearly not satisfy the crime he was accused of). The entire next passages are his reasons rejecting the likely mercies he could be offered (and would be expected to plead for). Just like making a plea for a guilty sentence comes with the expectation of a potentially lighter sentence in our own court systems, a plea for extenuating circumstances during sentencing is often made by the defense. For example, an elderly person requiring care may avoid prison and plead for home arrest. Now imagine the circumstance where pre-sentencing, facing a recommendation of the death penalty from the prosecution, the defendant stands before the judge and explains in great detail why he won't accept any of the potentially lesser sentences he might get, rejecting them one by one. That is explicitly what Plato is showing Socrates to have done. Consider: does it makes sense to argue against a more lenient sentence when your life is on the line, especially when it is likely you would receive it? Why would Socrates seemingly act against his own interests?
    - alt227 1y ago
      > The man proposing the sentence is Meletus Yes, this is what I originally stated, that it is his prosecuters arguing for death. You seem to be ignoring the passages where he explicitly suggests a fine as the sentence, however you may also argue that he does this in jest/sarcasm. Yes he argues against exile etc, but in no way does he ever suggest death is a prefered option in my opinion.