Re: Great Books

[chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx]

jrmu,

Socrates' philosophy does not merely resemble a religious movement, it
is in fact a religion. Consider the religious elements:

The founder is Socrates. Like other religious prophets, he claims a
divine calling. The Oracle of Delphi declared Socrates the wisest of
men, and by the calling of Apollo, Socrates was to act as a gadfly to
the people of Athens. His mission as prophet was to expose the ignorance
of his fellow citizens so that they might care for their souls. In all
this, Socrates was guided by his inner daimonion.

The transmission of the prophet's were committed to his disciples Plato
and Xenophon.

Socrates outlines his creation myth in Timaeus. An all-good, divine
architect, the Demiurge, brings order out of a chaotic cosmos. The
material world is based on a heavenly realm of eternal, perfect Forms.
After this pattern, harmonious worlds are created, and the heavenly
bodies are set in periodic orbit.

In Phaedo, Socrates outlines his doctrine of reincarnation. Life comes
from death, so that souls are continuously reincarnated into new bodies
based on their conduct in previous lives. This is argued through the
cycling of contraries, a yin/yang duality. Learning is remembering
something from the past life. Souls mastered by bodily pleasures are
punished with reincarnation into lower animals like donkeys or wolves.
Souls dedicated to Socrates' religion achieve Nirvana.

In The Republic, Socrates outlines his plan for a theocracy. Like other
religions, Socrates wished to eradicate existing religions with
competing theologies. The treatise outlines his method to purge Greek
myths which depicted the gods as petty, jealous, and irrational. This
would make room to present his new myth that the gods were inherently
good, rational, and just.  For attempting to supplant the existing
religion with his own, Socrates was put to death. Plato then converted
Socrates' trial and execution into a martyr story.

Western philosophy is based on a religious movement similar to the
Buddhism or Taoism of the East.

chokhmah

On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 05:28:41PM -0700, jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> If you think about it, Plato's Republic is actually quite an amusing
> story.
> 
> It starts with a reasonable definition of justice: 
> 
> "Simonides said that the repayment of a debt was justice"
> 
> But Socrates is not satisfied! No, he argues that:
> 
> "If the just man is good at keeping money, he is good at stealing
> it...Then after all the just man has turned out to be a thief."
> 
> So, like a good philosopher, Socrates must go and redefine justice. So
> he proposes a new republic where he abolishes private property; seizes
> children from their parents; censors music, poetry, and drama; enforces
> a eugenics system; and spreads propaganda and suppresses history so the
> citizens follow his rigid caste system.
> 
> Now that the groundwork is laid, Socrates is finally able to redefine
> justice: each man obeying his order in the caste system!
> 
> You remember the original principle which we were always laying down at
> the foundation of the State, that one man should practise one thing
> only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted...we affirmed that
> justice was doing one’s own business.
> 
> This is the most hilarious dialogue I have read in a long time.
> 
> -- 
> Aaron Lin
> jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> 
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 09:19:57AM -0700, jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I'm now halfway finished with Plato's Republic, on Book V. I've mostly
> > reached my conclusion now. Going forward, I'm going to treat Western
> > philosophy as a cultural currency. I plan to read and treat Western
> > philosophy the same way I would read the Koran or the Tao Te Ching or
> > the Sutras. I intend to treat them as culturally and historically
> > influential books, as a gateway to understanding a culture and
> > civilization. To approach it in any other way makes no sense to me at
> > all. To prioritize the Western culture also makes no sense to me at all.
> > 
> > Plato's Republic was the final nail in the coffin for me. It convinced
> > me there's nothing especially rational about Western philosophy.
> > 
> > If you have a rebuttal I'm unaware of, let me know.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Aaron Lin
> > jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> > IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> > 
> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2026 at 09:36:42PM -0700, jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > > 
> > > > I accused Aristophanes of being anti-intellectual, not of advocating for
> > > > censorship. The Socrates in _The Republic_ is a fictional depiction, it should
> > > > not be used to determine the historical beliefs of Socrates.
> > > 
> > >  From what I understand, all our extant records of Socrates are based off
> > > of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Since I infer you disapprove of
> > > Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates, where *else* do you get information
> > > about the real life of Socrates except Plato?
> > > 
> > > > Are all intellectual cultures equally worth participating in? Maybe reading
> > > > the Quran would help one participate in Islamic intellectual debates. But if
> > > > these debates treat the Quran as dogma, then these debates might not be worth
> > > > engaging with. (If the culture is equally worth participating in, there might
> > > > be still be practical reasons to favour works from the tradition you are
> > > > already familiar with.)
> > > 
> > > My personal goal is not to participate in contemporary philosophy per
> > > se, but to find inspiration for new ideas. For that purpose, I
> > > definitely see participation in a diverse number of cultures as
> > > important. To be exposed to lots of new ideas, it is far superior to
> > > have a shallow depth of widely diverse cultural works than to have an
> > > advanced narrow specialization in a single culture.
> > > 
> > > > Even if the conclusions of a work are not true, the work might be worth
> > > > engaging with for reasons other than 'cultural currency'. It might be that
> > > > what is said is wrong, but it is wrong in a way that helps one better
> > > > understand the truth. For example, you might be convinced that some position
> > > > is true and it might really be true, but you have some reasoning that is
> > > > flawed, and someone arguing against your position shows that your reasoning is
> > > > flawed.
> > > 
> > > Don't the non-Western books offer the exact same opportunity? If you
> > > read The Republic to analyze why it is wrong, can't you do the same with
> > > Tao Te Ching? There are an unlimited number of wrong arguments in global
> > > literature to choose from, we might as well choose the most influential
> > > ones to analyze.
> > > 
> > > In any case, the nonsensical things in The Republic should suffice to
> > > prove that there's nothing special or superior about Western philosophy
> > > compared to other philosophical traditions. The real superiority of the
> > > Western Canon lies in its scientific writings post 1500AD.
> > > 
> > > > One could reject Plato or Plato's _Republic_ specifically while still thinking
> > > > that there are other books worth reading. There are some interesting parts of
> > > > the _Republic_, but there is also a lot of junk.
> > > 
> > > Might you be interested in offering a defense of The Republic?
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Aaron Lin
> > > jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>