Xenophon begins his Apology by saying: "But what they didn’t make clear—and without it his boastfulness is bound to appear ill-considered—is this: he had already concluded that for him death was preferable to life."

In typical Socratic fashion, this raises more questions than it answers. Why would he consider that death was for him preferable to life? We are reminded of the Socratic claim that the unexamined life is not worth living. But exile would not have prevented him from philosophizing. So why this conclusion?

Although he was 70 years old there is no indication of poor health or diminished capacity. In fact he had a young son. So neither the conjecture that he was too old to travel or too infirm to live holds up.

Socrates was confronted with the fundamental tension between philosophy and the city. He questioned the ancient traditions of the city. Such questioning is impious. Teaching the youth to question is corruptive.

At the root of such questioning is the question of whether something is good simply because it it part of the traditional foundations of the city. To consider this question is to philosophize. Doing so is to favor philosophy over the city. And yet, Socrates demonstrated his civil piety by complying with the judgment of the jury. He does not put himself or the pursuit of philosophy above the law.

In Plato's Apology Socrates points to the comic poet Aristophanes, who in his play the Clouds accuses Socrates of the things he will at a much later date be accused of at trial. He calls on Socrates and philosophy to be responsible for what they say. Plato's response is his own comic poetry, the Republic, a play in philosophy takes full responsibility through the philosopher/kings. In other words, philosophy and public life can only be reconciled in the unlikely event that philosophers rule. They are persuaded to rule because they owe something to the city, that is, they have a responsibility to the city.

Cicero said:

Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the heavens and to place it in cities, and even to introduce it into homes and compel it to inquire about life and standards and goods and evils.

(Tusculan Disputations V 10–11)

Socrates was the first political philosopher. His concern was how we ought to live. And this includes how we ought to die. His was not the death of a martyr but the death of a philosopher.

It was left to the youth he "corrupted" to figure out how to bring into harmony the tension between philosophy and the city. As Nietzsche says:

THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!

(BGE,211)

It is not a question of what I think but of understanding what Hegel thinks. This is why in previous posts I pointed to the development of the concept of logos.

It should be pointed out that

logic in the modern sense. — Banno

supports Hegel's insight into the importance of the recognition of historical development.

In each of these cases there is a logical development. The development is intelligible, that is, rational.

Hegel continues the philosophically formative dispute between Parmenides and Heraclitus. With Heraclitus he asserts not simply flux or change but logos.

Hegel's logic is a logic of developmental change. A logos or account of the whole.

Are the acorn and the oak tree the same thing or different things?

I can pick up an acorn and put it in my pocket, but I cannot do the same with an oak tree. In this sense an acorn is not an oak tree. But the acorn and the oak tree are stages in the development of the same thing. They are both the same and not the same.

Are subject and object the same thing or different things?

Here too there is a development. The development of knowledge through its different stages. What is to be known is not simply knowledge of things or objects but knowledge of knowledge, knowledge of the knower, self-knowledge. Here he takes a step beyond Kant, a step beyond the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal. Subject and object are both the same and not the same.

Authority of any kind has to prove its legitimacy, especially state authority. It hasn’t. So I don’t think it has a legitimate role — NOS4A2

And yet you say that we should not do without the state. Does this mean you accept that it should have a role, albeit illegitimate?

I’m just wondering if you developed ideas, principles, and corresponding behaviors in a state that promotes war, slavery, bigotry, imperialism, you name it. — NOS4A2

Yes, the United States. But since you agree that these things would occur even without the state, and that you are not convinced we should not do without the state, then your argument seems to be not that we should not think in statist terms but that the state has a legitimate role and we should think of ways to improve it.

And there is not one single value the that it hasn’t violated. It also promotes war, racism, brigandage, robbery, you name it. — NOS4A2

Are you claiming that without the state these things would not occur?

Slaves had certain benefits. — NOS4A2

They do. But those who are not slaves often, but not always, enjoy greater benefits. In any case, it does follow that being a citizen is to be a slave.

Are we to conclude from this that whatever your hope for the future may be, you recognize the need for the state today?

You didn’t develop any ideas, principles, and corresponding behaviors as you grew up? How do you survive? — NOS4A2

I did, but did so within a state that promoted equality and the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is evident that not everyone in this state abides by these principles, at least when it comes to how they treat others.

I’m only convinced the state should not operate like a criminal organization. — NOS4A2

So is it that you are not opposed to statism but rather to particular practices of the state?

Your position reminds me of the happy slave myth. — NOS4A2

I have not stated a position. I recognize that we enjoy certain benefits being citizens of a state, but do not accept your view that citizens are slaves.

NOS has faith in what he calls a

fully developed morality — NOS4A2

If all or even most people were self-governing then there would be no need for governments. Do you share his faith?

If one thinks through an issue it should be apparent that despite the restrictions imposed by the state we enjoy many benefits that most would not be willing to give up.

A better idea than thinking that not thinking in statist terms will lead to a "reformation" in a few centuries that will do away with the state?

Well since you are convinced we should do away with the state, thinking in terms of how to do away with it and what to replace it with. I dont see how you could do the former without thinking in terms of the state, which is not the same as your misguided, myoptic, caricature of the state, and the latter cannot be accomplished by replacing people as they are with people as you want them to be.

You position reminds me of that of a privledged child who wishes mommy and daddy would just go away so he could do whatever he wants.

Centuries of “reformation” is all it took. — NOS4A2

So is your argument that "we only need to stop thinking in statist terms and the rest will follow" in a few centuries of "reformation"?

If you lost your faith in religion would you still go to church? — NOS4A2

If you lost your faith in the state wouldn't you still live in the state? It's institutions, its laws, its power would remain as they are.

Good question! What follows from not thinking in terms of the state?

We only need to stop thinking in statist terms and the rest will follow. — NOS4A2

A fine example of magic thinking. Or it is magic not thinking?

I guess that's one approach - dialectic as rhetoric rather than logic. — Banno

Hegel maintains the unity of thinking and being. Dialectic is the movement of thought and being in time, from becoming to being, from knowledge to self-knowledge, from development to completion.

A few quick comments:

Hegel's logic is the sublation or aufheben of earlier concepts including the different senses of Greek logos - to gather together, to speak to give an account, to syllogisms, and later to John's logos, and Kant's formal logic.

The process of sublation both negates and preserves. It takes up and develops earlier incomplete concepts.

It addresses the ancient problem of change. How can what is the same thing be different over time? It is both same and other, identical and different.

The whole is both one and many. A self-realising unity through difference.

Hegel's social and political philosophy cannot be adequately addressed without discussing his Philosophy of Right.

Its own Jesus, too, I believe. — Ciceronianus

Yes. Starting from the first generation, with Paul's "Christ". Hebrew scriptures were appropriated and stories of Jesus told to fit the appropriated texts. The Arian controversy . Martin Lither's principle of interpretation. Calvin. On and on until today regarding questions of abortion and homosexuality.

That's an interesting interpretation, but I think it's an example of anachronism. — Ciceronianus

It has been said that each generation has its own Plato. Cited here:

For, as Plato liked and constantly affected the well-known method of his master Socrates, namely, that of dissimulating his knowledge or his opinions, it is not easy to discover clearly what he himself thought on various matters, any more than it is to discover what were the real opinions of Socrates.
– Augustine, City of God, 248

some have considered Plato a dogmatist, others a doubter. . . . From Plato arose
ten different sects, they say. And indeed, in my opinion, never was a teaching
wavering and noncommittal if his is not.
– Michel de Montaigne, Complete Essays, 377 (2.12)

It seems to me that Plato is a profoundly conservative figure — Ciceronianus

A few points to be considered. In a period of tumultuous political upheaval, to be conservative is not to support any particular regime but to support the ancestral. Plato is writing in the shadow cast by the trial and conviction of Socrates for impiety and corrupting the youth, that is, for the danger he posed to the ancestral. Plato had to be cautious so as not to suffer the same fate either for himself or for philosophy itself. And yet, in the Republic the poets are banned. That is a profoundly anti-conservative act.

But I think Plato was being an advocate — Ciceronianus

Yes, but of what? As I read him not for certainty and perfection. He provides the image, and it is one that has inspired philosophers and theologians, but as an image of what to aspire to it is at the same time an image of how far we fall short of its attainment.

The irony should not be lost that it is the same Socrates who professes his ignorance who speaks go grandly and eloquently about the very thing he does not know. In the Republic he plainly states that he is not certain about the myth of Forms he creates.

He may have understood that the terrible state he envisioned wasn't likely to arise, but he envisioned it nonetheless, and not merely as a kind of stalking horse. — Ciceronianus

It is not simply that it was not likely to arise but that he did not intend for it to arise. The city in speech is intended to illustrate the problem of justice in the soul writ large. The Republic is fundamentally about the politics of the soul.

As to actual cities, it points to the irreconcilable tensions between the private and the public, between one's own and the demands of the city. If the family is a natural unit, then given the central importance Plato gives to nature and in particular human nature, then the "solution" proposed in the Republic is clearly not tenable or to be taken seriously. It is the problem, which goes to the root of what it is to be human, and not this solution, that must be taken seriously.

The dialogues should be read in the Socratic spirit in which they are written. Nothing should be simply accepted as Plato's opinion or conclusion on a matter but rather everything should be subject to question and challenge. This is what is meant when he says in the Second Letter that 'no treatise by Plato exists or will exist".

The quest for certainty is poisonous, and Plato valued certainty and perfection. — Ciceronianus

In Socratic terms, what is poisonous is not the quest for certainty but the assumption that one knows, and not knowing that one does not know. Dialectic is a method of hypothesis. The goal is to be free of hypothesis, but Plato is clear that the Forms themselves are hypothetical. See the discussion of hypothesis in the Phaedo.

I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer — Ciceronianus

Both Aristophanes and Xenophon portray Socrates as a skeptic. But what is at issue here is not Socrates but Plato, and more specifically, the Republic.

Plato's Socrates is not intended to be a portrayal of the man himself. As Plato says in his Second Letter, the Socrates of the dialogues is a Socrates made "young and beautiful" (314c), or alternatively translated as "new and noble". I won't speculate as to why he thought this necessary, but in any case, he is the creation of Plato.

I understand, though, that after he humiliated himself by trying to make a philosopher-king of Dion — Ciceronianus

It was not that Plato tried to make Dion a philosopher-king but that with the urging and help of Dion to first make the tyrant Dionysius and later his son the king Dionysius II more philosophical. Even if Plato had been more successful in improving their character, this is a far cry from making a king a philosopher.

What should be understood is that the philosopher-king of the Republic is a philosopher in name only. He is not one who desires wisdom but one who possesses it. The philosopher-king is to rule, not because he is a lover of wisdom, one who desires wisdom, but because he possessed divine wisdom. Since no one is divinely wise, there can be no philosopher-king.

But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise. — Ciceronianus

The two are connected. The education in the Republic occurs at two levels, the image of one who escapes the cave and the instruction the aristocratic Glaucon and Adeimantus, brothers of Plato, receive through Socrates. The philosopher-kings of the Republic are an aristocratic class, but the political and philosophical education of the aristocrats Glaucon and Adeimantus in the Republic are markedly different from the education of those who escape the cave and acquire transcendent knowledge of the Forms. In other words, part of their education is knowledge of their ignorance. If the best regime is aristocratic, then aristocratic education must include education of their ignorance and the desire to know. The best regime is one in which the rulers are zetetic skeptics.

Since the topic is not Plato, I will keep this brief.

Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. The dialogues often end in aporia. When compared one to another we see that they bring into question and problematize claims raised in other dialogues. Those like Popper who see the Republic as a form of Totalitarianism, fail to understand Plato. Plato makes it clear that the just city made in speech is not intended to be a model for any actual city. Rather than offer solutions, it points to the problematic nature of political life; in part by showing how radical and unacceptable the proposed solutions, such as the breeding program, are.

Plato does not reject poetry. His works are themselves a form of poesis. We should not be so dazzled by the image of transcendent knowledge in the Republic that we fail to see the importance of the imagination, the making and use of images. The Forms are images of knowledge. The Timaeus points to several of the inadequacies of the Republic, including the idea of the Forms.

A while back he was arguing for a metaphorical interpretation, but despite repeated attempts to get him to explain the meaning of the metaphors, was unable or unwilling to do so.

He attempts to root out the influence of Paul, but fails to see the influence of and on the author of John and how what he takes to be the teachings of Jesus are actually the teachings of John, or how John differs significantly not only from Paul but from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

As to his thought experiment: on the one hand he seems to be arguing that it does not matter whether these are the words of Einstein or the fictitious scientists, what matters is not who said it but what is said. But this seems to imply that what is important is not whether Jesus actually said the words attributed to him, what is important is the "underlying concepts".

As far as I can see, he accepts the underlying concepts found in John and rejects those found not only in Paul but also those he suspects come from the influence of Paul. One obvious problem is that in the thought experiment the actual words of Einstein are preserved and transmitted, but we have no idea the extent to which the words of Jesus have been preserved and transmitted.

It stands to reason that the further we get from the source the less likely it will be that there will be an accurate transmission. There is then good reason to suspect that what @ThinkOfOne calls "HIS" word is the word of the pseudonymous John not Jesus.

Why should anyone take you seriously? — ThinkOfOne

The fact of the matter is that many members do take him seriously. Over the years he has demonstrated why he should be taken seriously.

You make the sophomore mistake of confusing disagreement and disregard.

In the short time you have been here, however, you have amply demonstrated that you cannot be taken seriously. If you cannot address the questions and problems posed then you cannot be taken seriously as someone capable of reasoned discourse.

Present a cogent argument that isn't a straw man and I'll be happy to address it. — ThinkOfOne

I have not presented any argument, cogent or otherwise. I asked a question. You did not answering it.

Someone else @ThinkOfOne is now clawing his way to the top. Same tactics.

Why do you keep taking everything out of context? — ThinkOfOne

Why do you keep evading the issues?

I did read what Tom wrote. He made the point that we do not know whether or not Jesus actually said the things attributed to him. You lay emphasis on:

the importance of HIS words. — ThinkOfOne

The words He spoke while He preached His gospel. — ThinkOfOne

But you go on to say:

From what I gather, the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are the only extant records. — ThinkOfOne

The words attributed to Jesus are not records of what he actually said but records of what these anonymous gospels writers said he said.

You then introduce your thought experiment, the point of which seems to be that it does not matter who said these things, that what is important is the quality of what was said. There is a shift here from "HIS" words to the words themselves.

And this brings us back to my question:

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own? — Fooloso4

Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. — ThinkOfOne

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own?

Seems like a good argument for demanding free universal healthcare for all from cradle to grave.
The human invention called money seems an unsatisfying reason given by those who don't support such. — universeness

I am in favor of universal healthcare, but the fact is we do not have it in the US. In the absence of what should be we must act on the basis of what is.

Where there is not universal healthcare the accumulation of wealth is a reasonable defensive strategy. This does not mean that more is always better, but how much is enough to pay for medical bills and loss of income in the case of serious illness? Even with health insurance life savings can be wiped out.

Thanks Michael. What prompted me to ask is the connection to Trump.

There have been an extremely unusually high number of American agents murdered or missing since Trump left office. — creativesoul

Can you provide a source?

Do you find Hegel's positions convincing? — Tom Storm

I think he made an important contribution to philosophy with the idea that thinking is cultural and historical. I do not accept his metaphysics though. I do not think the movement of thought is teleological.

If I understand Hegel correctly, then he claims that the philosopher's task is to understand history. — 64bithuman

To understand history it to understand the development of geist - spirit or mind. This is not simply a matter of an individual studying the past as a subject matter separate from or other than the individual, but to know it from within as part of this development, to know it from the standpoint of the "universal individual".


From a thread a few years ago on the Phenomenology

The quoted material is #27 and #28 from the Preface. The quotes are followed by my attempt to explicate the text. There are earlier posts in the thread that also address your questions.

27:

Knowing, as it is at first, or, as immediate spirit, is devoid of spirit, is sensuous consciousness. In order to become genuine knowing, or, in order to beget the element of science which is its pure concept, immediate spirit must laboriously travel down a long path.

Immediate spirit is devoid of spirit because it is consciousness of something other, that is, it is not self-consciousness. The path from consciousness of what is other to self-consciousness is the development of genuine knowing.

28:

However, the task of leading the individual from his culturally immature standpoint up to and into science had to be taken in its universal sense, and the universal individual, the world spirit, had to be examined in the development of its cultural education.

The universal individual, the world spirit, is not any particular individual:

... the particular individual is an incomplete spirit, a concrete shape whose entire existence falls into one determinateness and in which the other features are only present as intermingled traits.

The universal individual is one formed by the development of Western culture. Although genuine knowing involves both subject and object and is in that sense subjective, it is not a matter of whatever any particular individual declares or thinks or believes. It is universal subjectivity. But it is not simply a matter of consensus, that is, what is true is not so because most or all at any given time take it to be true.

In any spirit that stands higher than another, the lower concrete existence has descended to the status of an insignificant moment; what was formerly at stake is now only a trace; its shape has been
covered over and has become a simple shading of itself. The individual whose substance is spirit standing at the higher level runs through these past forms in the way that a person who takes up a higher science goes through those preparatory studies which he has long ago internalized in order to make their content current before him; he calls them to mind without having his interest linger upon them.

Each stage of development is secondary to the completion of the movement of spirit. By way of analogy, one's first steps are of momentous importance but cease to be important as one learns to walk and run. Hegel is not minimizing the importance of what those before him have accomplished. Their accomplishments, however, have become internalized, part of one's cultural education. However great the accomplishments of Plato or Kant or Newton or anyone else, they are only moments in the development of knowledge and the world spirit. Although we may never accomplish what they did we are able to see further than they by standing on their shoulders.

In that way, each individual spirit also runs through the culturally formative stages of the universal
spirit, but it runs through them as shapes which spirit has already laid aside, as stages on a path that has been worked out and leveled out in the same way that we see fragments of knowing, which in earlier ages occupied men of mature minds, now sink to the level of exercises, and even to that of games for children. In this pedagogical progression, we recognize the history of the cultural formation of the world sketched in silhouette. This past existence has already become an acquired possession of the universal spirit; it constitutes the substance of the individual, or, his inorganic nature. – In this respect, the cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view consists in his acquiring all of this which is available, in his living off that inorganic nature and in his taking possession of it for himself.

Our inorganic nature is our spiritual nature. We are as we are not because of some timeless and invariant human nature or individual particularity. It is as it is because our spiritual nature is cultural and historical. The " cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view" appears to be a matter of what he or she acquires on his own, but:

... this is nothing but the universal spirit itself, or, substance giving itself its self-consciousness, or, its coming-to-be and its reflective turn into itself.

It is not the individual person but the instantiation or indwelling of spirit manifest in the individual.

If you are referring to home prices, the fact is home prices rose. This is true whether or not home ownership also rose. But in fact, the increase in homeownership led to higher home prices [edit: supply and demand], which in turn led to even less affordable housing.

Do you really not understand any of this?

You cite inflation as if that gives us an accurate picture of the health of the economy and quote the Heritage Foundation's questionable claim that:

... families can no longer afford to live in Biden’s America.

The weasel here is the term "families". Under both administrations it is true that there are families that cannot afford to live. The question is, are there more or less families in poverty under Biden than under Trump?

The Heritage article failed to mention is that poverty rates have gone down significantly. Why did they neglect to state this? The answer is simple, it undermines their rhetoric about the financial condition of families in America.

According to Washington Monthly

Americans are also significantly wealthier than before Biden took office.

In June 2022, the average working American earned $74,643 in wages and salaries, compared to $74,624 in January 2021 and $70,274 in February 2020. Even with 9.5 million more people working, the average working person earned as much in June, after inflation, as when Biden took office. And compared to just before the pandemic, when employment was comparable to today, the average person earns 6.2 percent even after inflation.

This report was published in June, inflation rates have slowed since then. But the numbers alone do not tell the whole of the story.

We are in a global economy. It is basic economics that when supplies cannot keep up with demand prices go up. Global supply chains are not controlled by Biden or the United States.