Take a photo of a barcode or cover
monkeelino 's review for:
Just as I was exiting the academic world (as a student), I came across Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, etc. I read some of the popular writers/titles, but it made me realize, I should probably go back and read more philosophy. Here's me, 20+ years later, starting with a re-read of Plato. I'm thinking of including at least one philosophical read and one poetry read each month this year and see how that goes (I don't have to worry about consciously including fiction because I don't honestly remember the last month of my life that didn't include fiction; it was probably at whatever point in time my parents weren't reading to me). Coincidentally, this ended up segueing well with a read of Irish Murdoch's [b:The Nice and the Good|12066|The Nice and the Good|Iris Murdoch|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1309280375l/12066._SY75_.jpg|752992].
This slim volume captures some of Socrates's well-known dialogues. If this is your first intro to Socrates, he's kind of like an internet troll pre-internet. He goes around unraveling, critiquing, and questioning everyone else, especially those in power or those who claim to be experts in their fields. He does this via what we now call the "Socratic method" --- an extremely entertaining way of leading discussion through a logical progression of closed-ended questions whereby his conversational participants usually leave midway through in frustration/disgust/annoyance and no one ever agrees on a definition or an answer to the subject/question at hand. It's like the verbal equivalent of a TKO. But along the way, all involved face their assumptions, clarify their interpretations/meanings, and attempt to reach a kind of universal consensus (we'll call it Truth). These conversations are both enlightening and entertaining (in part, because he always pretends to be this humble simpleton, while masterfully steering the conversation through questions and analogies).
Plato take us through Socrates's pre-trial on to his death with these five dialogues. Yes, Socrates was so annoying/good-at-what-he-did that the state put him to death. The Phaedo, Euthyphro (I still can't pronounce this correctly), and Apology were my favorites (in that order). What makes reading Plato timeless is that these philosophical topics/questions are ones we will always be trying to answer in some way (What is the nature of the mind/body split? What is truth? Is there a "right" way to live? What is the "best" form of organized government? What is the ideal relationship between citizen and state? Etc., etc.). Questions that the pace and minutiae of everyday life usually push by the wayside, but questions whose answers determine the values and quality of a life devoted to more than just impulse/immediate pleasure.
-------------------------------------------
From here on out I'm just going to share quotes and thoughts/questions that arose while reading this, so feel free to jump ship now...
Euthyphro
We find Socrates hanging outside court where he awaits his own trial. Meletus has accused Socrates of corrupting the youth and not believing in the city’s gods. Socrates runs into Euthyphro who is about to prosecute his own father for murder. Socrates figures anyone who is about to potentially sentence their own father to death must be an expert is justice and piety. Ostensibly, if Euthyphro can define piety for Socrates, than Socrates can use this definition to show he was not impious and Meletus has no case against him. In the course of their discussion, they introduce the notion of Forms, explore how humans define what is “right,” and the literal and figurative dangers of disagreement (e.g., death sentences, violence, war).
Apology
Socrates has his day in court.
Socrates believes god has set him on this path to continually goad and question all those in the city toward bettering their souls. It feels like American culture has reversed this---we not only believe that wealth brings about excellence, but wealth alone seems to be the goal with no regard for the soul.
He pleads his case, contemplates the nature of death, and loses the case, perhaps affirming that "justice" really is an artificial concept created by humanity.
Crito
Plato gets a chance to escape his sentencing when a friend offers to spring him. The haphazard dangers of the majority are discussed and whether one should bother trying to please them. Plato says it’s a waste of time. Plato believes virtue and honesty are among man’s most prized possessions, as are lawful behaviors and the laws; thus, he stays because he feels it is his duty as a good citizen (this kind of virtue and integrity almost seems laughable, especially in 21st century public life---that's pretty sad).
Meno
Centered around the discussion of whether virtue can be taught. Socrates believes the soul is eternal and that all learning is the soul “recollecting” (a kind of memory being awakened). The analogies seem shakier in this dialogue as they often compare teaching virtue to teaching a skill or craft (something you do or create; whereas, you don’t do or create virtue so much as you either are considered virtuous or individual actions exhibit virtue; they themselves are not virtue). I can never figure out how Socrates decides which terms need defining in these dialogues (e.g., he assumes “beneficial” and “harmful” are concepts clearly agreed upon by everyone).
Phaedo
Are we sure this term is not Greek for a type of haircut? Like, Yoooooo--he got the fresh phaedo!
Dialogue reads like a renunciation of all emotion and pleasure. Deals with the mind/body split--- intellect and mind as soul; only soul grasps and understands knowledge and can grasp Forms; this can only be perfected in death after the soul has been separated from the body. As I was reading, I began to wonder what the earliest instance is of humans documenting an awareness of a soul or a difference between mind and body… ?
Practicing philosophy is preparing for death; therefore, the philosopher does not fear dying.
My favorite analogy from this book was in this section: The soul is to the body as harmony is to the musical instrument.
Forms seem to rely on strict dichotomy and be affirmed by tautology. How does the individual soul relate to the concept or Form of Soul? E.g., A tree can die but TREE as a Form cannot die. So is there a soul and a SOUL?
From whence does the soul come and how many are there in existence? It would seem, in theory, they would never increase or decrease in number unless there’s an unlimited supply just waiting for new humans. You could potentially get a certified pre-owned one. Might be preferable since its immortal and would come with some knowledge/wisdom.
Thought experiment: Since there seems to be almost nothing capitalism cannot appropriate and commodify, how would high fashion have appropriated Socrates?
---------------------------------
YOUR REWARD FOR STICKING WITH ME TO THE END
Melons as Musical Instruments
This slim volume captures some of Socrates's well-known dialogues. If this is your first intro to Socrates, he's kind of like an internet troll pre-internet. He goes around unraveling, critiquing, and questioning everyone else, especially those in power or those who claim to be experts in their fields. He does this via what we now call the "Socratic method" --- an extremely entertaining way of leading discussion through a logical progression of closed-ended questions whereby his conversational participants usually leave midway through in frustration/disgust/annoyance and no one ever agrees on a definition or an answer to the subject/question at hand. It's like the verbal equivalent of a TKO. But along the way, all involved face their assumptions, clarify their interpretations/meanings, and attempt to reach a kind of universal consensus (we'll call it Truth). These conversations are both enlightening and entertaining (in part, because he always pretends to be this humble simpleton, while masterfully steering the conversation through questions and analogies).
Plato take us through Socrates's pre-trial on to his death with these five dialogues. Yes, Socrates was so annoying/good-at-what-he-did that the state put him to death. The Phaedo, Euthyphro (I still can't pronounce this correctly), and Apology were my favorites (in that order). What makes reading Plato timeless is that these philosophical topics/questions are ones we will always be trying to answer in some way (What is the nature of the mind/body split? What is truth? Is there a "right" way to live? What is the "best" form of organized government? What is the ideal relationship between citizen and state? Etc., etc.). Questions that the pace and minutiae of everyday life usually push by the wayside, but questions whose answers determine the values and quality of a life devoted to more than just impulse/immediate pleasure.
-------------------------------------------
From here on out I'm just going to share quotes and thoughts/questions that arose while reading this, so feel free to jump ship now...
Euthyphro
We find Socrates hanging outside court where he awaits his own trial. Meletus has accused Socrates of corrupting the youth and not believing in the city’s gods. Socrates runs into Euthyphro who is about to prosecute his own father for murder. Socrates figures anyone who is about to potentially sentence their own father to death must be an expert is justice and piety. Ostensibly, if Euthyphro can define piety for Socrates, than Socrates can use this definition to show he was not impious and Meletus has no case against him. In the course of their discussion, they introduce the notion of Forms, explore how humans define what is “right,” and the literal and figurative dangers of disagreement (e.g., death sentences, violence, war).
“What subject of difference would make us angry and hostile to each other if we were unable to come to a decision? Perhaps you do not have an answer ready, but examine as I tell you whether these subjects are the just and the unjust, the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the bad. Are these not the subjects of difference about which, when we are unable to come to a satisfactory decision, you and I and other men become hostile to each other whenever we do?”In short, disagreement readily leads to anger, which easily elevates to hostility/violence.
Apology
Socrates has his day in court.
“No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings, for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils. And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know.”
“For I go around doing nothing but persuading both young and old among you not to care for your body or your wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the best possible state of your soul, as I say to you: ‘Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence brings about wealth and all other public and private blessings for me.’”
Socrates believes god has set him on this path to continually goad and question all those in the city toward bettering their souls. It feels like American culture has reversed this---we not only believe that wealth brings about excellence, but wealth alone seems to be the goal with no regard for the soul.
“It is not difficult to avoid death,... it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death.”
He pleads his case, contemplates the nature of death, and loses the case, perhaps affirming that "justice" really is an artificial concept created by humanity.
Crito
Plato gets a chance to escape his sentencing when a friend offers to spring him. The haphazard dangers of the majority are discussed and whether one should bother trying to please them. Plato says it’s a waste of time. Plato believes virtue and honesty are among man’s most prized possessions, as are lawful behaviors and the laws; thus, he stays because he feels it is his duty as a good citizen (this kind of virtue and integrity almost seems laughable, especially in 21st century public life---that's pretty sad).
Meno
Centered around the discussion of whether virtue can be taught. Socrates believes the soul is eternal and that all learning is the soul “recollecting” (a kind of memory being awakened). The analogies seem shakier in this dialogue as they often compare teaching virtue to teaching a skill or craft (something you do or create; whereas, you don’t do or create virtue so much as you either are considered virtuous or individual actions exhibit virtue; they themselves are not virtue). I can never figure out how Socrates decides which terms need defining in these dialogues (e.g., he assumes “beneficial” and “harmful” are concepts clearly agreed upon by everyone).
Phaedo
Are we sure this term is not Greek for a type of haircut? Like, Yoooooo--he got the fresh phaedo!
Dialogue reads like a renunciation of all emotion and pleasure. Deals with the mind/body split--- intellect and mind as soul; only soul grasps and understands knowledge and can grasp Forms; this can only be perfected in death after the soul has been separated from the body. As I was reading, I began to wonder what the earliest instance is of humans documenting an awareness of a soul or a difference between mind and body… ?
Practicing philosophy is preparing for death; therefore, the philosopher does not fear dying.
My favorite analogy from this book was in this section: The soul is to the body as harmony is to the musical instrument.
“...we should not become misologues, as people become misanthropes. There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse. Misology and misanthropy arise in the same way. Misanthropy comes when a man without knowledge or skill has placed great trust in someone and believes him to be altogether truthful, sound and trustworthy; then, a short time afterwards he finds him to be wicked and unreliable, and then this happens in another case; when one has frequently had that experience, especially with those whom one believed to be one’s closest friends, then, in the end, after many such blows, one comes to hate all men and to believe that no one is sound in any way at all.”
“...for the uneducated, when they engage in argument about anything, give no thought to the truth about the subject of discussion but are only eager that those present will accept the position they have set forth.”
[One of the aspects of social media I find infuriating is that discussions seem to have an unalterable focus on “winning” an argument and not in finding truth. It would be wonderful if the next quote is how we approached all discussions... "You may say I'm a dreamer / But I'm not the only one... "]
“If you think that what I say is true, agree with me; if not, oppose it with every argument and take care that in my eagerness I do not deceive myself and you and, like a bee, leave my sting in you when I go.”
[Ah, but agreement relies on truth. A general relativity and exponential multiplication of narratives/histories, and thus realities, makes the singular concept of “truth” almost an impossibility.]
Forms seem to rely on strict dichotomy and be affirmed by tautology. How does the individual soul relate to the concept or Form of Soul? E.g., A tree can die but TREE as a Form cannot die. So is there a soul and a SOUL?
From whence does the soul come and how many are there in existence? It would seem, in theory, they would never increase or decrease in number unless there’s an unlimited supply just waiting for new humans. You could potentially get a certified pre-owned one. Might be preferable since its immortal and would come with some knowledge/wisdom.
Thought experiment: Since there seems to be almost nothing capitalism cannot appropriate and commodify, how would high fashion have appropriated Socrates?
---------------------------------
YOUR REWARD FOR STICKING WITH ME TO THE END
Melons as Musical Instruments