Re: Great Books

[chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx]

jrmu,

>  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?

There's no reason to believe Plato's description of Socrates is
inaccurate or exaggerated. Even Aristotle criticizes Socrates for
Kallipolis.

From https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html:

There are many difficulties in the community of women. And the principle
on which Socrates rests the necessity of such an institution evidently
is not established by his arguments. Further, as a means to the end
which he ascribes to the state, the scheme, taken literally is
impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely
stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates
proceeds, 'that the greater the unity of the state the better.'

Again, how strange it is that Socrates, after having made the children
common, should hinder lovers from carnal intercourse only, but should
permit love and familiarities between father and son or between brother
and brother, than which nothing can be more unseemly, since even without
them love of this sort is improper.

> 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.

Western philosophy from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are a religion
just like Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are religions. As I proved in
the earlier email, there's nothing particularly secular about them.
Buddhism and Taoism also encourage rational inquiry.

chokhmah