It also doesn't follow TPF Guidelines for 'Starting New Discussions' and writing an OP. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1

Despite engaging so far, it seems he is unwilling to do much more. This is ' not the best place to ask questions'. Relying on the email he has set up.

I'm really glad people are interested, but I will remind you that there is an email address set up for questions and potential solutions because I sent this to a couple of forums and fifty philosophy departments, so trying to keep up with communication in every avenue is going to be difficult — Dan

And again, it is likely that questions on this forum will not recieve prompt replies and may go unreplied to entirely. It is not the best place to ask them. — Dan

This is unfair and I don't think it is in the spirit of the forum.
You were happy enough 8yrs ago to participate and reap the rewards of your discussion:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/284/a-new-normative-theory-and-a-phd-thesis

I was curious to see how the 'PhilosophyNow' forum members responded to your OP:
The first post from FlashDangerpants ( I remember him well!)

I for one have never heard of 'freedom consequentialism' before, so I went to have a look for some. Currently the only literature on the subject appears to be Daniel's PhD thesis, available here:

For a bit of what it's about, here's a para from near the top of that...

My goal in constructing my normative theory is to determine how free, rational agents ought to be or act, where “ought” is understood in an objective and universal sense, assuming that this question has an answer.
Because this is my goal, I put free, rational agency, or “personhood” at the heart of my theory. The measure of value I use is the ability of persons to understand and make their own choices, as being able to do these two things in conjunction is the defining characteristic of free, rational agency. In this way, my theory shares the advantage deontology has of closely connecting moral value with moral agency.
Because my theory is also consequentialist, it shares the advantages utilitarianism has of not having to draw a strong distinction between action and inaction, and of being able to make clear recommendations in most circumstances by analysing the consequences of the various courses of action available. So, to the extent that one thinks that morality should describe the way all persons ought to be or act, or that one finds both consequentialism and a close connection between moral value and moral agency appealing,one has a reason to be interested in my theory

I'm very unlikely to challenge for the 10K prize myself, being the incorrigible moral skeptic that I am, but the idea at least seems interesting enough to try and stop VA from drowning the thread before it can get going as he does to everything else in this wretched garden of choke-weeds. So I will at least work through the paper and see if I can find a few snippets here and there to discuss.

Who knows, maybe Henry will be inspired to get him that 10K in cold hard Southern Hemispherical cash? He likes bit of freedom.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=42605

You have clearly worked assiduously with follow-up on your thesis.
And it is good that you did as promised and referenced a forum poster on p131 of your thesis pdf:
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/e2660406-4892-435f-bd0a-17b8ee5318c4/content

And now, you will benefit from more insight offered by people perhaps initially attracted by prize money but mostly who also have experience and knowledge and generously share their thoughts and ideas.
It would be a pity if you didn't continue in active discussion. It is in interaction that we learn...

Just my thoughts. As someone who doesn't appreciate so-called 'prize money' and rules being set as inducement. But will follow the various comments with interest...

Good to hear from you again and thanks for the welcome back :smile:
I don't expect to be posting often. Definitely not getting embroiled in the political threads...but, of course, I have my thoughts...they slip out every now and then!

Hey, javi - good to see you keeping the thread alive. Hope you are keeping well and as positive as possible. How can you not with that fantastic football result in Euro24 final!? Spain 2 - England 1.
But then, there are the 'losers'. I hate it that some footballers remove their runner-up medals almost as soon as they are hung over their necks. Not seen as being proud of that achievement?!

Re your cartoon:
Happy to say that the shift to the right has been stemmed for a little while. At least in the UK with Labour toppling the Tories. Yesterday, PM Keir Starmer hosted a European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace - hopefully building stronger relationships...we will see...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jul/18/european-political-community-summit-uk-politics-blenheim-palace-starmer-macron-scholz-meloni

But, of course, the hard right are still around. Boris, Truss and Farage hurrying off to support Trump.
The Tories still to find a new leader. From the remains, probably even more extreme than before.

Anyway, my spirits are raised, even as I am appalled at what is happening in USA politics.
Thought I'd share this cartoon from First Dog on the Moon.
'Does that cloud have a silver lining or is it something else?' Pessimism v Optimism. I like that it ends with the question: Is something getting better in your life or the world? An invitation to comment. I think it's difficult but necessary to turn focus on that. Too easy to dwell in misery.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2024/jul/19/do-you-think-things-are-generally-getting-better-or-worse-are-you-a-pollyanna-or-a-misery-kevin

Thanks for the help! :sparkle:

In so far as he intends to influence the philosophers who come after him, we might regard this as the story he tells them. If they are to be philosophers, what are their responsibilities to others both now and in the future? If, to use Plato's imagery, they are to be puppet-masters and opinion makers, what stories are they to tell? — Fooloso4

Ah well, good questions. Stories. Isn't it all about mental manipulation? Some of the truth is hidden for the 'good of the people'. Some stories are never heard. Ears and eyes are closed and opened to suit.

In order to test this we need to look at how certain thinkers and ideas have influenced the way we think, what we believe, and how we live. — Fooloso4

Are you talking about what we think is 'true' for ourselves? It is not always easy to follow the links of influence. Or even if we act according to our so-called beliefs. The truth is we can self-deceive quite readily without even being aware of it. Difficult to change perspective once fixed.

I don't think the need to hide, however, is for us at this moment something necessary, but that may change in the next few years. — Fooloso4

Indeed. But it is happening now. It is frightening to consider the violence that can erupt. When even voicing an opinion contrary to a 'leader' or his mob can result in being called a traitor, criminalised or worse.

I am the hysterical side of the partnership. The one who has to be talked down from quitting out of anger, getting into needless conflicts, or arrested — Paine

Thanks for the insight into part of your life.

Use of the word 'hysterical' bothered me a little, given its medical history. In ancient Greece, hysteria (Hysterikos) was thought to be a woman's disease, related to the womb. Later (17th century) the emphasis moved to the brain and a disorder of the nervous system, also affecting men. Emotions became relevant; passions arising in the brain, not 'vapours'.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128017722000011

It occurred to me that if the aim of Plato/Socrates is for us to lead the best life, wellbeing clearly involves health, food and medicine, why is the focus more on concepts and character. What 'the philosopher' should be.

If we practise philosophy why would we need someone to talk us down or out of anger and its effects.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could take the heat out of America. What would it take?

We need to do all we can to lower the anger pervading American politics
Robert Reich
Trump’s messages to his followers during this election season has had a constant undercurrent of violence
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/17/trump-campaign-martyrdom

It's all very well diagnosing the problem, but where are the positive, political healers - words are empty without action. Where to start? With yourself? Change the diet?

Back to Socrates, then, and his last words. What did they mean?

Crito, we owe a cock to Asklepios - Pay it and do not neglect it.

Plato’s dialogues show that Socrates saw Asklepios as more worthy of emulation than the warlike gods of the state-supported Greek pantheon.
While dying from the executioner’s hemlock, Socrates asks his friend Crito to pay the traditional thank offering given to the physician-god: a cock symbolizing rebirth. He looks to the only god then known to revive the dead to help his ideas and spirit live on. Socrates’s last words thwart Athenian authorities’ attempts to silence him, issue a call for Asklepian ideals to prevail in the city of Athens, and identify the selfless caring for others exemplified by Asklepios as the highest duty for all humans. Socrates calls us from the past to remember timeless Asklepian physician duties to self, patients, and community. Socrates reminds modern physicians of their personal duty to make their own spiritual health their first priority, their professional duty to comfort the sick and alleviate suffering, and their societal duty to advocate for the vulnerable, sick, and suffering and the health of the public. — Socrates last words - An ancient call for a healing ethos in civic life

@Fooloso4 - I think we discussed the meaning of Socrates last words in your thread?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1

Thanks for the clarification and context of 'the philosopher'.

I really don't understand Nietzsche's identification of 3 truths, deadly or otherwise:

He identifies three deadly truths:

... the doctrines of sovereign becoming, of the fluidity of all concepts, types and species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animals
(Nietzsche, Untimely Meditations)

These doctrines are the antithesis of what are often regarded as key Platonic doctrines based on immutable kinds or forms, which are key to the education of philosopher. — Fooloso4

How is that pointing in the right direction?
You would need to spell this out before I might appreciate the difference. Otherwise I would need to read and I'm not tempted to read N. especially when he says this:

The real philosophers, however, are commanders and law-givers ...
(BGE 211)

Accordingly, most who study and write on philosophy are not philosophers. He reserves the title for the rare, exception individuals who shape and determine our lives. — Fooloso4

The talk of 'real philosophers' suggests that is a 'truth' for him. It doesn't make sense to me and sounds provocative. However, it would be wrong and stupid of me to judge by only reading snippets of his thoughts.

I'm surprised that you haven't read all of the Disputations - where's your dedication, man? :wink:

I think the last line I quoted is important:

... and argue so as to conceal my own opinion ... — Fooloso4

Yes, I wondered at that. I'm aware that these politically and philosophically motivated men lived in dangerous times. They witnessed how Socrates paid the ultimate price. So many philosophers wrote in ways to hide their identity and been quite creative in keeping alive. Until...
Is that what you meant?

Thanks for this. I had just returned and edited my original request to be given a 'direction'. It seemed lazy of me. Our posts crossed and I'm glad you posted your thoughts. It is indeed informative and I will take time to read... hopefully to improve my understanding.

NB: I do not consider myself a 'philosophical quietist / therapist' (even though I agree with Witty that philosophy is not theoretical (i.e. doesn't explain matters of fact) – that, for me, it's only reflectively hermeneutic-pragmatic (Epicurus ... Spinoza ... Hume ... Peirce-Dewey ...)). — 180 Proof

OK...'only' that, huh?! Sounds good to me :cool: and quite the journey...

My wife is asking for a greater display of practical reason over the theoretical for the coming week. — Paine

Sounds like she is applying the art and science of practical wisdom.

Not in any sense a 'nag' or jealous shrew as poor Xanthippe is sometimes depicted.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthippe

It is only in Xenophon's Symposium where Socrates agrees that she is (in Antisthenes' words) "the hardest to get along with of all the women there are."[7] Nevertheless, Socrates adds that he chose her precisely because of her argumentative spirit:

It is the example of the rider who wishes to become an expert horseman: "None of your soft-mouthed, docile animals for me," he says; "the horse for me to own must show some spirit" in the belief, no doubt, if he can manage such an animal, it will be easy enough to deal with every other horse besides. And that is just my case. I wish to deal with human beings, to associate with man in general; hence my choice of wife. I know full well, if I can tolerate her spirit, I can with ease attach myself to every human being else.[8] [...]

In his essay "The Case for Xanthippe" (1960), Robert Graves suggested that the stereotype of Xanthippe as a misguided shrew is emblematic of an ancient struggle between masculinity (rationality, philosophy) and femininity (intuition, poetry), and that the rise of philosophy in Socrates' time has led to rationality and scientific pursuit coming to exercise an unreasonable dominance over human life and culture.

Maybe that's because Stoicism is, putting it simplistically, the Socratic method applied covertly (or strategically) to practical / political life. 'Radically moderate' yet effective. Unapplied, however, elenchus is mostly therapeutic (e.g. (late) Wittgenstein). — 180 Proof

Perhaps so. I don't know. But I think Stoicism is not just one thing. It grew and split as so many do. Ideas transplanted into other fields like psychology and CBT. Therapy via logic and reasoning.
Just as Wittgenstein moved on. I haven't read much of him - don't know of any therapeutic effect.

Edit to add:
I've since scanned the Quietism article you linked to:

Quietism in philosophy sees the role of philosophy as broadly therapeutic or remedial.[1] Quietist philosophers believe that philosophy has no positive thesis to contribute; rather, it defuses confusions in the linguistic and conceptual frameworks of other subjects, including non-quietist philosophy.[2] For quietists, advancing knowledge or settling debates (particularly those between realists and non-realists)[3] is not the job of philosophy, rather philosophy should liberate the mind by diagnosing confusing concepts. [...]

Contemporary discussion of quietism can be traced back to Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose work greatly influenced the ordinary language philosophers. While Wittgenstein himself did not advocate quietism, he expressed sympathy with the viewpoint. — Wiki - Quietism

Perhaps philosophy is good at 'diagnosing confusing concepts' but not sure that this has liberated the mind. It seems any untanglements simply lead to more, no? Even adding to the problem...with different interpretations and neologisms...more 'isms'.

From Cicero:

But Socrates was the first who brought down philosophy from the heavens, placed it in cities, introduced it into families, and obliged it to examine into life and morals, and good and evil. And his different methods of discussing questions, together with the variety of his topics, and the greatness of his abilities, being immortalized by the memory and writings of Plato, gave rise to many sects of philosophers of different sentiments, of all which I have principally adhered to that one which, in my opinion, Socrates himself followed; and argue so as to conceal my own opinion ...
(Tusculan Disputations, Book V, IV) — Fooloso4

Yes, thanks for the quote. Have you read all of the Tusculan Disputations?

I searched for the context and found this:
https://www.attalus.org/info/tusculan.html
'Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, written in 45 B.C., is a discussion of various topics that had been explored by Greek philosophers. It takes the form of conversations at Cicero's Tusculan villa.
The dialogue is split into five books, and links to the translation of each part of these books can be found in the following table:'
Easy to find Book 5. From section 4:

[...] But numbers and motions, and the beginning and end of all things, were the subjects of the ancient philosophy down to Socrates, who was a pupil of Archelaus, who had been the disciple of Anaxagoras. These made diligent inquiry into the magnitude of the stars, their distances, courses, and all that relates to the heavens. But Socrates was the first who brought down philosophy from the heavens, placed it in cities, introduced it into families, and obliged it to examine into life and morals, and good and evil.

It continues:

I have sent you a book of the four former days' discussions; but the fifth day, when we had seated ourselves as before, what we were to dispute on was proposed thus:-

[5.] [12] A. I do not think virtue can possibly be sufficient for a happy life.

M. But my friend Brutus thinks so, whose judgment, with submission, I greatly prefer to yours.

A. I make no doubt of it; but your regard for him is not the business now; the question is now what is the real character of that quality of which I have declared my opinion. I wish you to dispute on that.

M. What! do you deny that virtue can possibly be sufficient for a happy life?

A. It is what I entirely deny.

M. What! is not virtue sufficient to enable us to live as we ought, honestly, commendably, or, in fine, to live well?

A. Certainly sufficient.

M. Can you, then, help calling anyone miserable, who lives ill? or will you deny that anyone who you allow lives well, must inevitably live happily?
— Cicero - Tusculan Disputations,

I didn't read much more but can only wonder at this seeming continuation. Is it a form of nostalgia?
Distinguished, exclusive male followers of Socrates. In a different time and setting but still same old concerns? Would you have loved to have been there?

The philosopher who desires the truth will not take these stories as true, but as part of her education they may be suitable. — Fooloso4

Well. I really don't know how to respond to this. It depends on what you mean by 'the philosopher'.
What variety? I don't think of myself as a 'philosopher' but someone who enjoys different aspects. Of? Yes, its stories. All concerning life as we know it, even if we can't grasp it all.

Any story can be an 'education'. A way to learn about self and others - we create our own and share.
As to 'suitability' who is the judge? It isn't always about a desire for truth, is it? I really don't find it easy to talk about the Big Truth or little truths as something to aim for.

I recently re-read the Sophist and was struck at how Plato expressed a kind of nostalgia in his writing of the dialogue. The literary device of the Stranger is a reflective view of previous work in many ways. — Paine

I wonder what words he used so that you felt his nostalgia?
— Amity

That is an interesting question. — Paine

After I asked the question, I thought it might not be in the words but the gaps between. Any silence. Or change in tone that you picked up on.
Perhaps it was simply the change of perspective; a different literary device and way to look at Socrates and his place in Plato.

Another interesting question is: What do you think Plato was nostalgic for? Has his life changed so much from the early days. As a student of Socrates. The arguments they might have had. What Socrates would think of the progress of his student and how he is being used. Even if it means that without Plato, his story might have been lost? Did Plato feel closer to the spirit of Socrates in the early dialogues?

I found an article which doesn't answer my questions but deals with nostalgia, images and words:
https://www.oxfordpublicphilosophy.com/two/plato-poetry-nostalgia

Plato purports, in his dialogues, to develop a new, intellectually hygienic genre of writing: dialectic. Where poetry acts as a pharmakon -- a kind of intellectual toxin, or drug, that makes us sleepy and forgetful, dialectic wakes us up. But the Socratic dialogue is an overtly theatrical form, blending comedic and tragic elements. — Plato, poetry, and nostalgia - Oxford public philosophy

The article addresses fascinating issues lightly and creatively. We fall into Lucy in Narnia. Then, Annie Dillard’s, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, the narrator greedily recites accounts given of and by patients who, having spent their lives blinded by cataracts, become suddenly sighted:
'Instead of a “dazzle of colour patches” she sees peaches. The colour patches seem lost forever. She mourns. “I cannot unpeach the peaches”.

It made me wonder more about Plato the man and the way he used his creative energies. Perhaps, the obsession with Socrates and political philosophy meant he denied his own poetry and self-expression. Creating stories of magic. But then again...priorities, priorities...promotion of philosophy.
The never-ending story...pathways and interpretations.

Most significant, perhaps, is Plato’s choice of mouthpiece, Socrates. Plato’s dialogues do not mark Socrates’ debut as a literary character. The philosopher was something of a stock figure in Athenian comedy, and Socrates appeared on the stage cast in this mould, most famously, as a fraudulent crank in Aristophanes’ satire, Clouds. Plato could have channeled his philosophy through a figure of his own making. But he didn’t; instead, he chose a figure with a literary hinterland.

It was more than this. There was a special love and closeness...and a need to defend; to carry on and support ideas in new ways.
Also, grief and loss to be filled. I like to think so, anyway...but my imagination carries me away...

The question arises as to how much of what Socrates says in the dialogues is the reworking of second-hand stories? — Fooloso4

Here, Socrates is a character in a play. Arguably, all literature is a reworking or re-imagining of life themes and stories. What is interesting are the reasons for recycling, re-forming. What spin of the author's beliefs and imagination adds something new and exciting to the mix. What is the aim and purpose of the works. Whose words are they? Second-hand Socrates? Who is the audience and how will they be persuaded by whatever message the author is attempting to convey.

Tragi-comedic plays and dialogue better, more attractive to some than dry scholastic argument?

As I understand it, a Socratic philosopher is one who knows he does not know and thus devotes her life to inquiry. Some hold to the assumption that to question is to deny, but it can be a mode of inquiry, an attempt to understand. — Fooloso4

OK, thanks. There are different reasons for any attempt to understand, generally and specifically. Also, different methods in different fields. Questioning, discovering facts and information. People search to increase knowledge - to seek answers to problems. We build on what is known or unknown.

It is clear that this is not just a philosophical enterprise, far less exclusive to one specific type.
To question is also to challenge the status quo. Sometimes for the better, other times not so much.

'To devote a life to inquiry' - conjures up an almost religious obsession. It seems narrow and not quite what I was expecting.

Is it about taking Socrates as a role model? Or the use of Socratic questioning?
— Amity

Maybe a role model for questioning. His single-minded devotion, however, could only be suited to someone who shares that devotion. — Fooloso4

You can take someone as a role model and not be single-minded or share the same level of 'devotion'.
This sounds, again, like a religious worship. It can set up a situation whereby if people can't reach perfection or attain a certain level of success, then they feel they have failed. I think that is why some give up. Also, some with higher standards - who have perhaps devoted their life to it - can judge and dismiss them as unworthy with insufficient character.

I seem to remember questioning @Shawn who once described himself as a failed Stoic...

Is this more subjective than objective?
— Amity

I would not put it in those terms, but do think there are differences in character and Tom Storm temperament that play a role. — Fooloso4

This was the full quote which included the underlined.

Regarding all the different kinds of philosophies - some are judged to be better than others. Is this more subjective than objective? Related to individual psychology and social background...already preferences and beliefs laid down. How to live life to make a person feel or be better, even when the consequences can't be foreseen. — Amity

I find it interesting how people can read someone's thoughts/post and almost immediately relate it to their own philosophical interests and beliefs. The different responses from 180 and yourself being an example.

It seems we have to go through a great deal of hellishness and deterioration of lives and services until rock bottom is reached. Before we can begin to climb out. — Amity

180 - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916609
F4 - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916680

It can be heartening to feel understood and then to see that, of course, there is nothing original and such thoughts are widespread. There is no need to attach a certain label to yourself.

It's strange but when I read 'Socratic philosopher', I was thinking of Stoicism.
— Amity

Not so strange. — Fooloso4

Yes, I have read and understand the development of Stoicism. However, it has been some time and the strangeness was in how I read the word 'Socratic' as 'Stoic'. And interchangeable. Of course, they aren't.
It then made me wonder about Plato and if he could be described as Stoic.

I found an old thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2782/relationship-between-platonism-and-stoicism

Ending with this from @Ciceronianus:

The Stoics revered Socrates, but that Socrates wasn't the Socrates of Plato.

The Stoics conception of an immanent divinity also sets them apart from Plato, and served to prevent them from flying off into the Never-Never Land of Platonism and Neo-Platonism and their offshoots and, of course, Christianity to the extent it borrowed from Plato than Aristotle and others of the ancient schools.

I hope you are well (or at least feeling better now that the Tories have been sacked) — 180 Proof

Oh yes, much better, thanks, and you? I despair of the American situation. And can only hope that Trump doesn't win again. It doesn't bear thinking about...

No! I don't believe that your creativity and imagination has dried up! I'm surprised that you haven't been scribbling away. Perhaps preparing for whatever Baden has in mind for the next 'Literary Activity'...?

Thanks for taking my thoughts and giving them a place in philosophy. Cheers! :flower:

It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help?
— Amity

I don't know. Help in what way? — Fooloso4

That is a good question. The How along with What kind of help, Why the need for it. I tried to fill this out earlier and posed more questions. Perhaps you could help with the first couple?

...the first question I should have asked was 'What is a Socratic philosopher?' and what does it mean to be one? How does it benefit a person to adopt this philosophy? And yes, you mention others to which the same questions could be applied.
Then, what exactly did I mean by 'help' - why would I need it?

Perhaps I didn't need to spell it out. It is about anxiety and anger about how we got to where we are...with no apparent way out. It seems we have to go through a great deal of hellishness and deterioration of lives and services until rock bottom is reached. Before we can begin to climb out.

Regarding all the different kinds of philosophies - some are judged to be better than others. Is this more subjective than objective? Related to individual psychology and social background...already preferences and beliefs laid down. How to live life to make a person feel or be better, even when the consequences can't be foreseen. Life can be a bitch.

It's strange but when I read 'Socratic philosopher', I was thinking of Stoicism. I wouldn't say I am a 'Stoic philosopher' but I adopted the perspective. Summed up in a version of the Serenity prayer:
'Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.' — Amity

I suppose then it is about help in travelling through life. Traversing the travails. The painful problems of politics and how individuals cope with the effects of unfair laws and hateful prejudice. Wars and weather.
Weathering the wars...

Is it about taking Socrates as a role model? Or the use of Socratic questioning?
https://www.learning-mind.com/socratic-questioning/

I hope I have not left chew marks on your ear lobes. — Paine

Very happy to have my brain tickled and my ears nibbled, thank you very much :smile:

It's great to read your thoughts and feel the energy of such passion. Quite inspiring!

The philosopher who returns to the cave does it to help the people living there. That connects to how Socrates said Athens was his city and he refused to leave it unless he could return to it. The Republic happened out of town. The theme of estrangement is woven into countless backgrounds in the Dialogues. — Paine

I hadn't thought of this before. How intriguing...to connect the dots and note themes.

I recently re-read the Sophist and was struck at how Plato expressed a kind of nostalgia in his writing of the dialogue. The literary device of the Stranger is a reflective view of previous work in many ways. I said something about that here. Another way it is shown is through comparison of Theaetetus and the Sophist. The same Theaetetus is being sharply tested in the first and gradually persuaded by the Stranger in the second. The dialogues also share very similar wording in some places that suggest a dialogue between the dialogues. — Paine

I wish I knew Plato better. To be able to share the kind of re-reading and relationship you enjoy.
I think that even in my limited reading I can see the interaction between dialogues. Again, thanks for pointing that out. I wonder what words he used so that you felt his nostalgia?

It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help?
— Amity
Maybe, but imo not as much as being either an Epicurean philosopher or a Stoic philosopher ... or even being an absurdist (Zapffe/Camus-like) philosopher ... might help. — 180 Proof

Thanks 180. Good to be with you again.
Of course, the first question I should have asked was 'What is a Socratic philosopher?' and what does it mean to be one? How does it benefit a person to adopt this philosophy? And yes, you mention others to which the same questions could be applied.
Then, what exactly did I mean by 'help' - why would I need it?

Perhaps I didn't need to spell it out. It is about anxiety and anger about how we got to where we are...with no apparent way out. It seems we have to go through a great deal of hellishness and deterioration of lives and services until rock bottom is reached. Before we can begin to climb out.

Regarding all the different kinds of philosophies - some are judged to be better than others. Is this more subjective than objective? Related to individual psychology and social background...already preferences and beliefs laid down. How to live life to make a person feel or be better, even when the consequences can't be foreseen. Life can be a bitch.

It's strange but when I read 'Socratic philosopher', I was thinking of Stoicism. I wouldn't say I am a 'Stoic philosopher' but I adopted the perspective. Summed up in a version of the Serenity prayer:
'Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.'

And then, there is the 'It is what it is' - almost a shrug and a giving in...or is it simply an acceptance.

Knowing enough to get by and then leaving it. Going for a walk and enjoying life and health when you can. Appreciating some interaction with others...returning to previous interests, to be raised from the dead...mixing it up. Using the brain cells...sharing stories.

Hope your story-telling is still going strong?

Thanks, Paine, for the link and introduction to The Statesman. I read some of it and also a little from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-sophstate/
It helped place the dialogue in context - after Plato's Sophist on the same day - but I seemed to have missed the appearance of the Time God Chronos!

Chronos is shown running the course of the universe backwards in order to restore its virtue and then run forward again under the guidance of gods to maintain order. Nostalgia does not get much better than that. — Paine

Other than a bit part Socrates watching a younger version of himself (Y Soc) being quizzed by a Stranger (philosopher). It didn't feel right and did make me nostalgic for the earlier more authentic Socrates. Although, Plato's play with the Face-to-Face made me smile...

Soc: 257D And indeed, stranger, they would both seem to have a certain kinship with me. In one case, you claim that he looks similar to me based on the nature of his face, while in the other case the fact that he is addressed by the same name 258A provides some relationship. Of course we should always be eager to get to know our kindred through discourse. So I myself had dealings with Theaetetus, in discussion, yesterday, and I have now heard him answering questions too[1] however, in the case of Socrates I have done neither. This fellow should be tested too, so let him respond to you now and to me on some other occasion.

Str: So be it. Well, Socrates, are you listening to Socrates?

Young Socrates: Yes.

Str: And do you agree with what he is proposing?

Y Soc: Very much so.

Str: 258B It appears there is no impediment on your side and there should probably be even less on my side. Anyway, after the sophist it is necessary, in my view, that the two of us seek out the man who is a statesman; so tell me whether we should place him in the rank of those who are knowledgeable, or not?

Y Soc: As you suggest.
— Plato, Statesman, 257D

Your humour is appreciated too:

On the other hand, Socrates is seen pulling the beards of powerful men, challenging the force of tradition until tradition served him a hemlock cocktail. — Paine

I am missing Socrates.
Unfortunately, I can't read as much as I would like and can't see me ever enjoying again the previous discussions we had - following Socrates. Nostalgic, huh?

Fooloso4 said it well in the OP:

We are easily charmed, dazzled, and confounded by the epistemological possibilities and problems raised by Plato. By comparison, self-knowledge and the examined life may seem small, pale, and trite. But the mundane everyday world we live in is what is of most immediate and persisting importance to the Socratic philosopher. — Fooloso4

It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help?

No. Did you?

I've said all I want to in our discussion. Leaving it here, thanks.

I was quite favourably disposed towards him, but when I heard that Steve Bannon was quoting him I was appalled, as I despise his form of 'conservatism' — Wayfarer

Yes, it is appalling and Bannon is dangerous. As is our own Farage, leader of Reform UK which is not a party as such but a company of which he is director and majority shareholder. How is that allowed?

As an “entrepreneurial political start-up” with Mr Farage as the company’s director and majority shareholder, there was no internal leadership election, like Labour or the Conservative Party. Mr Farage claimed Reform UK would “democratise over time” after he was accused of running a “one-man dictatorship” by broadcasters.

With the party set to contest constituencies up and down the country on 4 July, The Independent takes a look at the company’s unusual structure and how it differs to other parties. — The Independent - Why Nigel Farage’s Reform is a company and not a party - and what that means

He talks of a wider agenda. He has been likened to Hitler. He has all but taken over the Tories. He wants to topple newly elected Labour, as main opposition. He appeals to the same audience as Trump, using similar strategies. How might he be opposed by rational, philosophical argument? I don't think that will ever work. Different game and rules of engagement...

Although I'm an advocate for science, economic progress and political liberalism, I also think it has a dark side which needs to be called out, as we're so deeply embedded in it that we're not aware of it. That's why, even despite that misogyny and autocratic tendencies in Plato, his criticisms remain significant. — Wayfarer

How do you call out a darkness if you can't see it? I think that philosophers can improve the way they present their views and arguments to be more explicit and less vulnerable to being used or abused by dark manipulators. But perhaps it suits their purpose if words are ambiguous and open to different interpretations. A bigger audience is reached. As in the case of Plato. He appeals to many.

I am not sure what his specific political criticisms are. Or how any perceived 'tendencies' to misogyny or autocracy might be used by the current hard right contingent. @Fooloso4? Anyone?

I am not sure how you reach the conclusions you do, that this is a pretence, or harmful lies.
— Amity

That wasn't the conclusion. And you are free to replace that article with any example you can think of when people pursued philosophy for political motivations. There was no point, the link was for illustrative purposes. — Lionino

Ah. Yet another case of being wrong-footed. There is a pattern to the discussion. It is valuable to observe and learn from it. Use of only certain aspects of an analogy or single quotes from a substantive philosophical article to illustrate a personal point of view is weak and unconvincing. Now it seems that the link was used to show that some people, sometimes pursue philosophy for political motivations. That much is clear but it is not evidently the case in the article.

I don't know how easy it is to separate these
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Easy, in many cases. Someone's aversion to Buddhism or Berkeley may have to do with a materialist bias — no politics here. Now, developing an ethical theory for the explicit purpose of legitimising abortion or whatnot... — Lionino

I agree with the Count. It is not always easy to separate the different prejudices. He provided useful and examples to illustrate. I think it can be difficult to see or pinpoint the main aim/motivation in a person trying to persuade an audience of a particular viewpoint. Especially, when it might be hidden by muddying waters, unclear language, fallacious reasoning.
As humans, it is inevitable that we have all kinds of bias - philosophical, political, personal, to name a few. Philosophy can raise awareness of these and identify where they might not be helpful.

Philosophy requires - and develops - skills in reasoning, imagination and precise communication. Studying philosophy should enable you to assess your own ideas more rigorously, and to understand better why other people’s ideas may differ. — What is Philosophy? - York University

There will no doubt be political elements within academia. From top to bottom. Preferences in approaches. Different interpretations of readings. But that is part of the process of learning. To read, reflect and challenge with questions. Communicating clearly and as honestly as possible.

https://iep.utm.edu/fem-epis/
In general, this is a philosophical article. That is not to say there are no political elements. I am not sure how you reach the conclusions you do, that this is a pretence, or harmful lies. What harm is being done by considering and critiquing different perspectives and theories?

I had to return to this lengthy and substantive article to find the context of your quotes. It is not a topic that particularly intrigues me so I find it difficult to untangle. There are 7 sections. The first quote comes from:

2. Critiques of Rationality and Dualisms

'[...] Susan Hekman’s (1990) work argues that dualisms of nature/culture, rational/irrational, subject/object, and masculine/feminine underwrite modernist epistemological projects and that feminist epistemology should aim to destabilize and deconstruct those dualisms. Hekman argues that such destablization can only take place if feminists refuse the dichotomous presuppositions of the modernist project, including the dichotomy of masculine/feminine and its role in identity ascription. The aim, then, of feminist epistemology is both the eradication of epistemology as a going concern with issues of truth, rationality, and knowledge and the undermining of gender categories.'

This is only one philosophical argument amongst many and it comes with its critics. I am not in a position where I can comment fruitfully on either the philosophy or the politics of it.
I will leave it there, thanks.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

The philosophy of the IEP article you linked to concerns feminist epistemology.

'Feminist approaches to epistemology generally have their sources in one or more of the following traditions: feminist science studies, naturalistic epistemologies, cultural studies of science, Marxist feminism and related work in and about the social sciences, object relations theory and developmental psychology, epistemic virtue theory, postmodernism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and pragmatism. Many feminist epistemological projects incorporate more than one of these traditions.'

You consider this is not philosophy being done but politics? How so?

I didn't liken it in this aspect. — Lionino

I can only expect from myself to score or not. — Lionino

OK. So your 'scoring' is not about winning a philosophical argument against any other player. How then do you know how far you have upped your thinking game? How do you assess progress? Would you expect some coaching or guidance to help in learning or improving the necessary skills? Even recommendations for reading, watching or listening?

Where do the rules come from and are they always to be followed?
In tennis, for sure. In philosophy, there is more flexibility and questioning. What would be a first rule in philosophy?

I note your hope as to the content of academic philosophy. Why is that a concern for you? And why did you place quotation marks around the word philosophy?

What do you want and expect from philosophy?
— Fooloso4

asks what your goal might be, or, if philosophy is for you something that aims at a goal, and if so, can that goal be reached. Or if even through engagement the aim of the goal has changed. — Fooloso4

What has engagement with others meant for you and the way you think or live your life? Anything? Has it moved you or sparked interest in specific themes?

I can't expect anything from philosophy as an activity. — Lionino

But it seems you do. If you liken it to tennis then it is a game to be won or lost, depending on improvement of skills. The end goal is some kind of a victory. A final score or reckoning? Against what or who?

to get better at thinking. But it is not for the sake of itself, one could argue that tennis skills can translate to other skills; so getting better at thinking surely translate to many other skills. — Lionino

There are different levels in both philosophy and tennis; amateurs and professionals with different goals and aspirations.

In academia:

Philosophers concentrate on identifying assumptions, constructing arguments and assessing their strength – often by conducting so-called 'thought experiments'. For example:

What would you do if you were faced with a particular moral dilemma?
If time travel were possible, could you undo the past?
If your brain were transplanted into someone else's body, would the result be you or them?
If you spoke a different language, would your thoughts be different?

Philosophy requires - and develops - skills in reasoning, imagination and precise communication. Studying philosophy should enable you to assess your own ideas more rigorously, and to understand better why other people’s ideas may differ. — What is Philosophy? - York University

Philosophy graduates often go to work at fields that don't involve any academic philosophy. — Lionino

Yes, of course. And they bring their philosophical tool box with them, or not. Depending on their current goals, based on their values developed via critical thinking, introspection or simply living.

I couldn't figure out what its goal is. — Lionino

Perhaps there is no specific goal - more of an open-ended exploration of what posters take from the questions posed? It could lead nowhere or everywhere. Or tied up in side-tracks.
How would you answer the first and final questions?

What do you want and expect from philosophy? — Fooloso4

Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories? — Fooloso4

If someone claims to know what is the Good, do you know, can you know, that she knows what is the Good?
I know that if she's a mortal, then she cannot "know" ... — 180 Proof

Who wants or needs to know The Good or The Truth? These are only concepts bounced around by crazy philosophers or doubled-down crazed religious types.

It is about being the best we can be, given current knowledge of the world, applying reason and imagination to help balance feelings and emotion. For our own sakes. No?

there is actually quite a strong relationship between traditional philosophy and modern culture. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Where do you mostly find this connection? How different would you expect them to be? Doesn't it depend on what is meant by the terms?

I haven't delved into the world of 'traditional philosophy'. Or 'modern culture' for that matter.

Given the various socio-political and economic forces that shape us, there will always be change, slow or speedy, in how we think about the world and our place in it. The relationships, strong or otherwise, between various factions can be explored for ways to improve understanding. All the better to fight?

I noticed when I studied the so-called ‘traditionalist movement’ in European philosophy, that some of it - Julius Evola being an example - was quite close to fascist in its orientation. — Wayfarer

Evola is new to me but I've just read of him here. How 'traditionalism' is used to further the populist right:
Influencing the ideas of Steve Bannon - encouraging Trump.

Evola crafted a more expressly reactionary traditionalism by introducing the gendered and racial dimensions of these oppositions. To Evola, the opposite poles of the social hierarchy were also Aryan and non-Aryan, masculine and feminine, such that an ideal society would not only be theocratic, unequal and hostile to change, but also dominated by Aryan men.

Evola regarded himself as being to the political right of fascism and Nazism, both of which he saw as merely promising starts. He thought fascism represented a step backwards, in a positive sense: a retreat from the brink of mass egalitarian society. If he could only introduce spirituality into Hitler’s and Mussolini’s militarism, perhaps the rewinding of time could be accomplished, and a golden age of theocratic virtue restored. — How a mystical doctrine is reshaping the right - New Statesmen

It seems that there is indeed a rewinding of time and progress. Or is this all of an eternal cycle and we should expect it? Is this something we can fight against...?

much can be lost by judging the past by today’s standards. — Wayfarer

Indeed. And if I hadn't moved past my initial disgruntled feelings (not standards) to discover more, then I would have missed out. It takes an open mind and a flexibility of thought...even when we seem to have found something that seems to ring true. It is disturbing when traditionalists have a strong desire to keep the status quo. That which confers exclusive riches and benefits to the detriment of others. It is too easy to change laws hard fought for and criminalise those who protest or who are made homeless.
More could be said but heading for American politics now - currently not in a good place.

What do you want and expect from philosophy? — Fooloso4

A good question. It depends, as always, on what is meant by 'philosophy'. There is something about the word itself. It attracted me, like the word 'abroad'. It felt like it could be an escape or an exploration into foreign lands. Meeting new or other ways of living and thinking in different times and places. Absorbing all the senses of what it is to be human.

Initially, it was self-learning - books being at the fore. Reflecting and then wanting more. Guidance through the labyrinth. An academic course. A disappointing realisation that talking about Concepts of Creativity and Imagination was far from being creative and imaginative. It was dry as dust. However, it did serve as a basis. And my philosophy was to explore areas and themes important to me.
How people live. How might I live to feel and act so that the benefits outweigh the costs. Don't most of us want to be in a place of wellbeing - physically, mentally, socially?

What exactly is the benefit of "trying your best" to understand what justice is?
— Count Timothy von Icarus

It may prevent you from acting unjustly or wrongly accusing others of acting unjustly. We act on our limited understanding. What alternative do we have? — Fooloso4

But do people need to know the philosophical concepts/theories of justice?
Knowledge is important; we get the facts right before we can quantify the gaps of inequality. However, we can simply look and see and feel the differences in attitude and care. The results of indifference and hostility. The restrictions of freedom or too much freedom to talk hate. To stir the anger. Can philosophy or psychology benefit humans by understanding how emotions can be manipulated? It's all in the mind?

I think tradition is important but that we are not slaves to it as long as we question its authority. Questioning its authority has become part of our tradition.
— Fooloso4

I agree, but I think it depends on what is meant by "tradition". There is the philosophical tradition, then there are the changing, mostly unexamined (until they are) socio-cultural traditions that amount to dogma. — Janus

See: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/tradition.html ?
There are different kinds of tradition or forms of philosophy, just as in poetry.
Within these we find rules and certain ways of writing (rhyme and reason) which might constrain if too tight. Don't we all need room to breathe and find our own way? To increase understanding and awareness of the beauty of both tradition and change.

Poetic tradition, as in a ghazal, changes with the modern but still its core remains. It is about adapting to what individuals want to explore. Just as in philosophy, it is about accessibility. New freedoms to share human experience.

Traditionally about love, the ghazal and the sonnet, have moved to include the realities of life.
A migrant's yearning for home and belonging.
Political reflections and real concerns about health. Cognitive decline, not just a concept.
Alzheimers:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/155783/alz-ghazal

The Academy aimed to educate individuals not only in intellectual matters but also in moral virtues, aiming to cultivate wise and virtuous leaders. The Academy functioned as a community of scholars engaged in collective study and dialogue. It was not just a place for passive learning but an active intellectual community where ideas were debated and developed. — Wayfarer

'Individuals' - what kind? I thought it exclusively for young males of high class? And, of course, any leaders would be men. Those were the times. Initially, that is one of the reasons I didn't 'take' to Plato and those that followed his tradition. Exclusive and elitist.

There is still much of that in philosophy but on TPF it is encouraging to read all kinds from all kinds.
And that includes the story-telling...

anathema to others. — Fooloso4

Just as not everyone agrees on what is the 'Greatest Music' at any given point in their lives...

What matters is being given the opportunity to listen to other perspectives, even if/when our mind rebels.
So many stories...growing in, through and from all kinds of tradition...we can't read them all, even if we wanted to. Life, love and thinking can be overwhelming.

It's good to take a break from the challenges and rest a while. To appreciate balance and a sense of peace...but aren't we all drawn back to the excitement and fun of the philosophy wars?
Dancing up and down the scales...the black and white running into each other...

Making philosophical music requires both reason and imagination. — Fooloso4

Music to my ears!
Your excellent philosophy piece shows you are on top form. If you never write anything else, you could rest easy in the knowledge that you make the best kind of music. Substantive, light, informative and questioning. Worthy of publication in any journal. Many Congratulations!

So far (9am on 9th July 2024), it has attracted worthy and valuable responses. Let's hope that continues. I read it last night and it made me so very happy. That with Labour winning the General Election, consider my spirits raised.

I've had a prolonged stated of un-wellness. A hellish viral illness.
Thankfully, I'm regaining my stamina and vitality.

I admire your whole attitude to philosophy. You exemplify what I think is good about it. I am not sure that I can write that in your thread without seeming superficial and a fan-girl. Not sure that I have the brain power to tackle or even to think clearly about your points. I'm happy to read the posts of others who have clear and constructive thoughts and ideas, like:

But this isn't all Plato is doing. The dialogues aim at different audiences. This is the message to the skeptics. He has other things to say for people who have already started down this road and are ready to hear more. Likewise he has myths like the reincarnation story with the Homeric heroes at the end of the Republic for those who have somewhat "missed the point," but might nonetheless benefit from an edifying story. — Count Timothy von Icarus

'Different audiences'
Fooloso4 has helped me grow from a point of not liking Plato to realising his great contribution; his cleverness in attracting all kinds of controversy. Participating in The Plato threads, reading and re-reading, there was always some new groove shaking and shaping. I felt the poetry and the music , even as I struggled.

This OP is so well-balanced and inspirational to new and old readers alike.

I will end this with another question: Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories? — Fooloso4

Never! Stories arise from human interaction and the need to express experience and thoughts. Learning from and questioning the real and the imagined. Rock'n'roll :cool:

the suggestion is that if you have the truth conditions of a sentence, you have it's meaning. This is so whether the sentence is true of false. — Banno

Yes. Thank you for the clarification. I understand but have never been completely at ease with truth conditional semantics.

"Der Hahn legt ein Ei" is true if and only if the rooster laid an egg. — Banno

[Appreciate the clever and funny example, given earlier 'false friend' exchange with @javi2541997]

For me, this is circular and goes nowhere. So what? Davidson's more holistic view is an improvement.
Including context and interaction.

Davidson holds, in fact, that attitudes can be attributed, and so attitudinal content determined, only on the basis of a triangular structure that requires interaction between at least two creatures as well as interaction between each creature and a set of common objects in the world. — Donald Davidson - 4.1 - SEP

But then again. Why the need for a triangle? Can't an individual be said to have an internal meaningful conversation?

[...] I think statements of perspective, which is a lot of what we do here, are not binary true/false either. Can you actually assign T or F to every sentence, paragraph, and post here? I don't think so. Our little contributions are more or less consonant with what is discussed, fit well or poorly with the thread of discussion, and are likely true in some senses, false in others. This kind of ambiguity is typical of actual communication, rather than toy sentences such as "the sky is blue"; it is those that are the exception. — hypericin

Yes. This makes sense. Our interaction is both subjective and objective with varying degrees of expertise and quality. Attitudes, views and arguments, judged and responded to, if we want to appreciate all kinds of meaning and understanding.

And then, of course, it is not merely sentences that have meaning. — hypericin

Indeed.

@hypericin It might be helpful to visit Davidson here.
[...]
Anyway, that's an overly brief rendering of Davidsonian semantics: the meaning of a sentence is it's truth conditions. — Banno

@simplyG...if you know what needs to be so for a sentence to be true, what more do you need? What more is there to it's meaning? — Banno

This meaning is truth logical but meaning goes beyond that. False statements have meaning.

Thanks for reminding me of Davidson and a broader theory of meaning and interpretation:

In Davidson’s work the question ‘what is meaning?’ is replaced by the question ‘What would a speaker need to know to understand the utterances of another?’

The result is an account that treats the theory of meaning as necessarily part of a much broader theory of interpretation and, indeed, of a much broader approach to the mental as such.

This account is holistic inasmuch as it requires that any adequate theory must address linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour in its entirety. As we have already seen, this means that a theory of interpretation must adopt a compositional approach to the analysis of meaning; it must recognise the interconnected character of attitudes and of attitudes and behaviour; and it must also attribute attitudes and interpret behaviour in a way constrained by normative principles of rationality.

Rationality is not, however, the only principle on which Davidson’s account of radical interpretation depends. It involves, in fact, a marriage of both holistic and ‘externalist’ considerations: considerations concerning the dependence of attitudinal content on the rational connections between attitudes (‘holism’) and concerning the dependence of such content on the causal connections between attitudes and objects in the world (‘externalism’).

Indeed, this marriage is evident, as we saw earlier, in the principle of charity itself and its combination of considerations of both ‘coherence’ and ‘correspondence’. Davidson holds, in fact, that attitudes can be attributed, and so attitudinal content determined, only on the basis of a triangular structure that requires interaction between at least two creatures as well as interaction between each creature and a set of common objects in the world. — Donald Davidson - 4.1 - SEP

I beg your pardon. I feel ashamed of myself when I don't use grammar properly. — javi2541997

Por favor, no debe estar embarazada - or even embarazado?! :wink:

I am learning a lot ,thanks to this thread and interacting with you, — javi2541997

Yo también :smile:

I didn't pretend to find the 'perfect' answer — javi2541997

When you use the word 'pretend' do you mean 'attempt'?
I thought it might be a 'false friend', so checked it out:

Spanish false friends: PRETENDER

In a similar conundrum to intentar, the verb pretender often gets used by English students when they want to translate the English verb ´to pretend´. However, like intentar, the actual translation of this verb is ´to attempt´. When you want to express the verb ´to pretend´ in Spanish, the appropriate translation would be fingir — False friends - Spanish course

Knowledge of 'false friends' in any language is most important to communicate the exact meaning of a word.

The potential for embarrassing situations arises when speakers assume that they understand the meaning of a word in another language simply because it resembles a word in their native tongue. This can lead to unintentional humour, offence, or other types of misunderstandings.

Examples of False Friends in Various Languages

1. English-Spanish False Friends

– “Embarazada” in Spanish and “embarrassed” in English sound like they might be related, but they have very different meanings. While “embarrassed” refers to feeling ashamed, “embarazada” actually means “pregnant” in Spanish. This can lead to embarrassing situations if you’re trying to describe feeling ashamed and instead announce that you’re pregnant. — Beware false friends - britishey

And there are many more examples. I bet you've met a few!

I still maintain that you are more than able to respond to questions of meaning. But I'll leave it there and respect your self-assessment.
Just as I do your language ability and fascination with cultures other than your own.

Yes. Some meaning gets lost in translation. Loved that film. Haven't seen it in ages!