Thoughts on an introductory presentation of Socrates

[Kyriakos]

In a couple of weeks the second circle of the 'seminars' (they are less formal than that) i am organising/presenting for a few municipal libraries, will begin, and the scope of it is to build upon the previous circle (which had the Presocratics as its subject), present Plato and Socrates, and then (in its latter part) move on to the 19th/early 20th centuries and examine some reflections of notable writers on the same, or very related, issues.

I have, of course, created the outline, and finished the first speech of the starting presentation of this new circle, but i would like to ask if any people here who are familiar with the works of Plato (and the era), have any ideas to add, which i may well consider and build upon

So, here is the synopsis of the first presentation:

1) Historic timeline

-(shortly before) End of the Greek-Persian wars in Greece; victory of Athens in the river Eurymedon and the formation of the Delian league; influx of philosophers to Athens for the first time.

-Peace treaty of Nikias between Athens and Sparta, failure of the treaty later on and continuation of the war till the battle at Aigos Potamoi in 405 BC.

-Family of Plato, and of Socrates, Plato's parents descend from Solon the lawmaker, and possibly also the mythical Attic king Kodros. Socrates has a minor sculptor/stone cutter as a father, and a midwife as a mother.

-Conclusion of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates as a hoplite in three battles, the Trial of Socrates in 399 BC, and his death.

2) Socrates as a thinker/debater

-Socrates claims he is not creating knowledge, but - as his midwife mother - can help others deliver the knowledge they have within them, and note its strength or faults.

-Likeness and antithesis between Socrates and his views on the ability to have 'Knowledge", to the analogous ones by the Eleans (eg Parmenides and his claim that mortals can only have views (doksasies in the original greek), but not real knowledge of the truth.

-Later Platonic works, and The Republic. Analysis of the celebrated 'allegory of the cave', with its quite Eleatic hierarchy of knowledge, and the notions of forms and archetypes, along with a towering archetype of the "Agathon" (the term mostly means 'benevolent'). Tied to the second category above, for it is not purely Eleatic, but at the same time it is a departure from the claim that one can only hope to know that he knows nothing in reality.

3) Ties to the first circle

-Brief account of the first circle of the seminar, and its basis on concurrent math (eg Thales theorem, or Pythagoras, and then the Eleatics with their infinite series dialectic arguments by Zeno). Juxtaposition to Socrates, in dialogues such as the one 'On Science', which will be a recurrent theme in the first four weeks of this circle.

*

Ok... I would welcome any honest suggestion for making things more interesting, or to include some main part which i might have left out for the intro of intros in this circle...

 

[jackelgull]

So you're using these forums to help you with your homework?

Damn why didn't I think of that?

 

[Kyriakos]

Cause even if you had, you would not have thought of making it RD to avoid such unthinkable accusations which could not have been further from the truth and would be painting a fellow poster as some lazy sloth and opportunist?

:\

Spoiler :

See, i found your hubristic.

 

[jackelgull]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you, but it does seem kind of lazy and opportunistic; however, you did do most of the work already.

 

[brennan]

Did Socrates even exist, or was he an invention of Plato? That's an intesting subject.

 

[Lillefix]

Did Socrates even exist, or was he an invention of Plato? That's an intesting subject.

Actaully he's very well documented by several others. He was real. No doubt.

 

[PhroX]

Dust.
Wind.
Dude.

That basically sums it up I think?

 

[Kyriakos]

Did Socrates even exist, or was he an invention of Plato? That's an intesting subject.

As Lillefix posted, other notables have mentioned Socrates in around the same time (eg Xenophon, Diogenes, and Aristotle. Xenophon even wrote his own account of the Apology of Socrates). It is pretty certain he did exist, unless there was some massive conspiracy

edit: also (of course) Aristophanes

 

[Flying Pig]

It's quite a key problem in the subject, though, to discuss how far the real Socrates corresponds to the character in Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.

How about talking about Socrates' views on justice (δικ&#8053 in the Crito? I remember being intrigued by the way he phrases it as a matter of self-interest. That is, he argues acting justly is that which is beneficial to the health of the soul, and that acting unjustly is that which is harmful to it. The Euthyphro Dilemma is also quite an interesting one which might get people thinking. I don't know how philosophical or how biographical you want to make this, though - though in the case of the latter, surely the Socratic Problem should feature?

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, we do not know how the real Socrates talked, and Diogenes claimed that Plato presented a false-Socrates (Diogenes was a concurrent of Plato and iirc they had around the same age).

Aristophanes...

But it is true that even if Socrates is pretty much the Platonic version, he still is not as refined as the previous philosophers. That isn't to be attributed just to his genealogy, cause Protagoras was of even lower position originally (he was a free but menial worker in Abdera, who impressed Democritos and so became his student, despite being older than Democritos).

Do you mean the Daimonion of Socrates, btw? Yes, that will be spoken of, but not in the first meeting. Biographical notes are just given in passing, so as to have the people form a basis of the time and events of the era, along with some general info on the individuals apart from their philosophical thoughts which are the topic of the seminars. Basically the seminar is on Idealism, and an expansion of the previous circle of it that had been on the presocratic philosophers

 

[Flying Pig]

There is that, but there's a passage where he seeks to define δίκειν and ἀδίκειν, and makes it a matter of spiritual health - he tells Crito that escaping illegally from prison is the wrong thing to do because it will damage his own soul. It's quite an interesting conception of 'justice' and rationale for doing the right thing which I hadn't really come across before. A lot of people would have argued that wrong things are wrong because they hurt other people, but it's unusual to see it claimed that sinning damages the sinner in the here and now.

 

[Tigranes]

In its essence both points of view are incomplete (understated) versions of the pretty much universal golden rule: do to others what you want others do to you. Every good deed creates positive "field" around you, every bad deed -- negative. If you kill -- you are sending a message: it is ok to kill others. Which makes it ok to kill you by those who count you as another.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's not even that, though - Socrates argued that the soul is damaged by the very act of doing wrong, and nourished by the act of doing right.

 

[Tigranes]

Very Judeo-Christian thought, if you ask me But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death.

 

[Lillefix]

Very Judeo-Christian thought, if you ask me But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death.

Much of the new testament philosophy is based on Plato's ideas so it makes sense that they are similar.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Perhaps in old Greek "Socrates" just means "some" or "a jerk I once knew" or "John Johnson" or something. I mean if you are all so convinced he existed, I guess not. But I thought I throw this out there.

 

[Tigranes]

Much of the new testament philosophy is based on Plato's ideas so it makes sense that they are similar.

Greek Philosophy to Greek World was the same pre-calculus as Old testament for Jews -- to comprehend the calculus of Jesus. Slaves being equal with masters in the eyes of the God, while discouraging rebellions against Ceasar were foreign ideas both to Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Kyriakos]

Just to note that i do not wish any religious discussion here (let alone one about the irrelevant old testament, or the 500 years later new testament), since they aren't part of the program at all The old testament is not a work of philosophy anyway (neither the new testament; both are firmly religious texts and not arguments).

As for what the name of Socrates could mean, crates is tied to the verb Crato, which can mean anything from holding something, to ruling or being in power (eg democracy is having its second part be a version of that verb again).
Not sure about "So", but it is written with omega, and such terms include sophron, which means savior of phronesis (mostly a synonym for sanity), therefore in Socrates that bit may too signify savior qualities, but i am noting that the -crates is not met in this hybrid in other terms in my knowledge (although in the ancient era there may have been such terms, much more in archaic poetry as in Homer's or the lyrical poets who followed).

 

[Flying Pig]

σωφρων is just 'wise', and there are a lot of names ending in -κρατης (Iphikrates and Hippokrates, off the top of my head). -της as a noun suffix is often similar to -er/-or in English, but I wonder whether -κρατης is not just a corruption or archaic form of κρατος, since σως is whole, safe, intact etc.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>