Socrates got it all wrong and deserved his hemlock - some thoughts, feel free to criticize please. )

stoicHoneyBadger

Starting from Socrates, most people believe that humans are rational and logical beings, who gather all the facts, analyze them and come to a correct conclusion, yet I think it to be very, very far from the truth.

While logic certainly has its place in out though process, it seems to be subservient to instincts, emotions or the so-called first principals - i.e. some axioms taken as a priory true.

Logic can be very useful for solving issues, where all major parameters are known, yet becomes less and less efficient, once some parameters are unknown.

For example, if you want to measure the speed of light, you project it into a rotating mirror, measure the deviation of the returning beam and, using a simple formula, calculate the speed.
Now imagine if you don't know the distance of the rotating mirror or the speed of its rotation - the whole experiment immediately becomes worthless.

Therefor people are usually driven by instincts - a pattern of behavior, which formed during billions of years of evolution, to which logic is subservient.

Instincts say - I want to procreate. Logic follows - ok, we would need a mate for that, let's see where we could find one and how could we attract her.
Or instincts say - I am hungry! Logic replies - roger that, let me find some food for you.

So one could say that the relations between instincts and logic are similar to the ones between a general and his soldier. General has a big picture of how to win the war, but the soldier is given just his tiny bit to execute. Like install a machine-gun nest on that hill and secure a certain perimeter. He does not know how it fits into the big picture, nor should he. His mission is to execute the order, not to question it.

Therefor Socrates got it all wrong and deserved his hemlock. He actually was corrupting the youth by making them logically question their instincts, driving them into analysis-paralysis.

Socratic dialogues usually end with "see, it just proves we don't know anything. have a good night.", which would be correct, if the only way of knowledge would be a logical one.

Yet instinctual knowledge is a feeling that drives us to action - whether to eat, procreate or build an empire - yet we often are unable to explain it logically.

Let us look at the first principals - axioms that usually vaguely boil down to the following three questions.

1. how did the world begin?
2. what is our life for?
3. what happens after we die?

since none of those questions can be really answered in a definite manner, one usually goes with what his culture provides.

a Muslim would believe that
Allah created the world, his duty is to be a good Muslim and spread the word of Allah, visit Mecca, etc. , he will get 40 virgins if he dies on the battle field, fighting against infidels.

a Christian would believe that
God created the world, his duty is to emulate Christ by living a pious life, accept suffering, accept Jesus as his savior, and, hopefully, get an eternal life in paradise, or, if he screwed up, an eternity in hell.

an atheist/SJW type would believe that
the world came basically out of nothing, his duty is to make people equal and eliminate their suffering, once he dies, maybe he might be able to upload his consciousness to some Matrix or something.

all of the above are equally logical and rational people, their logic is just executing different axioms.

and each of them, of course, believes his world view is the only correct, which is an evolutionary feature, not a bug!

The task of a common believe is not to be necessary factually correct, but to bind and blind people, though enabling them to act as a group. Which makes them significantly more effective in comparison with people, who have a looser belief structure.

For example, see how Muslims are migrating to Europe and over-running locals? It all makes sense if we look at Islam not as a factual description of the world, but as a binding agent.

So, at least in the short term, the side that is vigilant about its believes would win, not the one that is factually correct.

Jack Cummins

↪stoicHoneyBadger

I think that your post is interesting but I think that it ignores the historical development of thinking, especially as it ends with saying that we usually go with cultural ideas rather than logic. What you are missing here is the way that the particular worldviews were dependent on specific answers to questions in the first place. Of course, it doesn't mean that those individuals were right in the first place. However, you may be right to say that instincts play a large role against logic, and frequently the debate is put in terms of rationality vs emotions.

But, was Socrates really corrupting youth by encouraging them to question? Also, your title, although may be intended as rhetorical, but at face value it suggests that he should have been put to death, which seems a problematic view. You suggest that the questions of 'how did life begin? 'what is our life for? and 'is there life after death?' are ones 'which cannot be 'answered in a definitive way'. I think that it is true, because they are indeed speculation. But, it probably doesn't stop people from thinking about them, so they may as well be discussed openly rather than privately. I admit that I have created threads on such questions, so, perhaps, it is time for me to be given the hemlock, but I say this with a sense of humour.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Jack Cummins

Of course, the title was rhetorical. )

especially as it ends with saying that we usually go with cultural ideas rather than logic.

But don't we? Especially since logic is linked to the answers of those 3 questions, which at this point can not be answered logically. So putting it simply, logic is good at working with an illogical framework. )

I would say the best approach might to come up with a model of life you want to live, then pick a framework that would bring you closer to it. So instead of looking for "what is the true" meaning of life, pick one that feels more convenient.

TheMadFool

Therefor Socrates got it all wrong and deserved his hemlock. — stoicHoneyBadger

Interesting! I like to look at it backwards (like my nephew K). The Hemlock deserved Socrates. It's (the Hemlock's) ancestors "worked so hard" - entreating Fortuna (what else can a plant do?) on an hourly basis - to make sure that when the Athenian "mob" finally decides to execute Socrates, one of their descendants would be oh-so-conveniently ready-at-hand to provide the means to end the life of the famed Greek gadfly. The Socratic Hemlock lineage's "hard work" paid off - it managed to, just by sitting there in the ground and doing nothing, asphyxiate a Greek legend.

baker

So, at least in the short term, the side that is vigilant about its believes would win, not the one that is factually correct. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes. Critical thinking (as understood in Western secular academia) is counterproductive to success in the world.

Tzeentch

Therefor people are usually driven by instincts - a pattern of behavior, which formed during billions of years of evolution, to which logic is subservient. — stoicHoneyBadger

And is the misery these people find themselves in and create for others not readily apparent?

When desires and instincts aren't properly understood and controlled, they are a bottomless pit that do not function in favor of the individual's happiness. Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal?

When individuals, or worse, groups of individuals, start following their desires and instincts, we get the situation that you apparently call "winning"; causing suffering to others in an attempt to fill the earlier mentioned bottomless pit. Conquests, war, greed, etc. The pointless, destructive endeavors human history is riddled with.

While the "winners" keep racing their chariot around the endless hippodrome of their desires, men like Socrates sit in the spectator stands, enjoying a day in the sun.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Tzeentch

Probably the issue here is that what the nature sees as desirable is rather different from what we do. Nature favors the winners, while we want everybody to hug and sing kumbaya.
That way a civilization is unsustainable in the long run, as people get security, they become weak, pathetic, self-hating. Barbarians roll in and conquer. Look at modern Europe, for example.

Tzeentch

Nature favors the winners — stoicHoneyBadger

Does it?

The "winners" will die just like everyone else, and their lives spent participating in the rat race for money, fame, power, conquest; pointless. The evils they commit in their foolish pursuit probably end up hurting, rather than benefiting them.

Strapping oneself infront of the cart of one's desires, civilization or 'nature' is a bad recipe for individual happiness.

Fooloso4

You got Socrates all wrong.

Instincts say - I want to procreate. Logic follows - ok, we would need a mate for that, let's see where we could find one and how could we attract her. — stoicHoneyBadger

Instincts say - I want to procreate. Logic follows - ok, but don't try to procreate with just anyone who comes along.

Let us look at the first principals — stoicHoneyBadger

since none of those questions can be really answered in a definite manner — stoicHoneyBadger

Since none can be answered in a definitive manner none are first principles.

and each of them, of course, believes his world view is the only correct, which is an evolutionary feature, not a bug! — stoicHoneyBadger

But of course they cannot all be right, although they may all be wrong. What are we to believe? Here someone like Socrates plays a crucial role. Not by telling us what to believe but by thinking and analyzing. Starting with the fact that none of these worldviews is instinctual.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Tzeentch

Does it?

Sure. Ask 10 women, whom would they would like to mate with, a winner or a looser? Pretty much that's all nature cares about.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Fooloso4

But of course they cannot all be right,

They don't need to. Moral framework is supposed to bind & blind people, not be factually accurate.

For example, 100 vigilant Muslims who act in unison would easily take over, probably, 10.000 atheists, who are caught in analysis-paralysis and are unable to act as a group.

Fooloso4

Moral framework is supposed to bind & blind people, not be factually accurate. — stoicHoneyBadger

The question is, what is each of us to take or use to build our moral framework.

For example, 100 vigilant Muslims who act in unison would easily take over, probably, 10.000 atheists, who are caught in analysis-paralysis and are unable to act as a group. — stoicHoneyBadger

And what follows from that with regard to how I am to lead my life?

Tzeentch

↪stoicHoneyBadger

Indeed, nature doesn't facilitate your happiness. It only functions to continue the cycle. A cycle which has no value to the individual and perhaps no value at all. Procreation is nature's carrot on a stick.

Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal? — Tzeentch

So again, does nature truly favor or serve the individual?
No, many individuals serves nature, which is why these "winners" are so unhappy.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Fooloso4

The question is, what is each of us to take or use to build our moral framework.

The way I do it, at first I pick what kind of life I want to live and then construct a moral framework that supports it. At least I really can't think of any other criteria. )

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Tzeentch

A cycle which has no value to the individual and perhaps no value at all.

It completely depends on the moral framework you adopt. You can pick one, where it has no value or you could pick one where it is highly valuable. :)

So again, does nature truly favor or serve the individual?
No, many individuals serves nature, which is why these "winners" are so unhappy.

This is a very broad question. Of course, a winner might overdo it or follow some unproductive ambitions, etc. but still, in the same circumstances, a winner would be happier, than the looser. On the other hand, why should we assume happiness is the goal anyway?

Fooloso4

The way I do it, at first I pick what kind of life I want to live and then construct a moral framework that supports it. At least I really can't think of any other criteria. — stoicHoneyBadger

That is not at odds with the Socratic way. It is, rather, part of it, what he calls the "examined life". It includes an examination of what you want in life and whether your current life helps or hinders your goals.

Tzeentch

t completely depends on the moral framework you adopt. You can pick one, where it has no value or you could pick one where it is highly valuable. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

The cycle having no value to the individual seems logical. As these things go way beyond the life of the individual, if the cycle were to end even one day after my death I would not be around to grieve or celebrate it.

Whether the cycle has some cosmic importance, i.e. life on planet Earth has some greater purpose that we are unaware of, is something none of us can answer, however I lean towards 'no'.

Of course, a winner might overdo it or follow some unproductive ambitions, etc. but still, in the same circumstances, a winner would be happier, than the looser. — stoicHoneyBadger

There are people whom you might consider "winners" who are deeply dissatisfied with life. There are people whom you might consider "losers" who in fact are living content. Whatever success they may have in nature's game is irrelevant and these labels of winners and losers meaningless.

On the other hand, why should we assume happiness is the goal anyway? — stoicHoneyBadger

Individuals do things because they believe these things are Good, and happiness to be the result. Of course individuals can be wrong and misled for all sorts of reasons, For an individual to do things that they believe not to be Good, is as irrational as sticking one's hand in a furnace when one's intention is to not get burned.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Tzeentch

As these things go way beyond the life of the individual, if the cycle were to end even one day after my death I would not be around to grieve or celebrate it.

True if you assume ones existance end with the death of his body. We can equally assume that this life is a thrill-ride for the sole and we are reborn in new bodies all the time.

Tzeentch

↪stoicHoneyBadger

If one believes in reincarnation, isn't there even less reason to put much value in nature's winners and losers?

stoicHoneyBadger

↪Tzeentch

You could look at it from multiple sides. For example, if you are playing a first person shooter game, even knowing it is a game, you will want to win.

Cheshire

↪stoicHoneyBadger

Any particular area you wanted to focus criticism on?
I can do the collective - covert fascism- but people get label adverse. The overarching notion that free thought is the same as corruption. The general bias thru out. The appeal to making emotional decisions. The combining atheist and sociological activist as cohesive group. Refer to it as overt tribalism as middle ground. Don't want to waste your time.

dimosthenis9

Logic can be very useful for solving issues, where all major parameters are known, yet becomes less and less efficient, once some parameters are unknown. — stoicHoneyBadger

Knowing when and where Logic can't help you,that's Logic too!
Who said that Logic is the magic pill for everything? But it is the best method at cases when factors are known and based on absolutely truth! At cases when absolute truth isn't known, then yes Logic can't do much! But that's not Logic 's fault!

it seems to be subservient to instincts, emotions or the so-called first principals - i.e. some axioms taken as a priory true. — stoicHoneyBadger

You say subservient, I say that yes these factors make really difficult for humans to follow Logic. But again that's absolutely not Logic's fault either!! Who said Logic is an easy way? But for me is the best way as humans to rationalize, as much as they can, their emotions and make decisions and actions that are best for them. (sure he will never get it 100% but Logic will help him hit the highest "score" at least).

Or instincts say - I am hungry! Logic replies - roger that, let me find some food for you — stoicHoneyBadger

So what?Not all instincts are good for us.If I have the instinct to fuck a woman I see at the market should I go and rape her as to obey my instinct? Why not Logic to help as the best filter for all these? As possible as it is in every case of course!

He actually was corrupting the youth by making them logically question their instincts, driving them into analysis-paralysis. — stoicHoneyBadger

Dear God first time I see someone is accused for corrupting others with too much... Logic!! What a bastard Socrates was, indeed!!
I really can't understand why so many people here are against Logic!
As long as I am here to this forum that's what I found most shocking and it was the biggest surprise to me!
What the fuck Logic has done to you people of Philosophy Forum and you attack to it so badly?? Is it a sign of ages? Maybe, cause societies seem to underestimate Logic more and more!
The worst that someone can accuse Logic for, is that can't offer solution to everything!! OK. So?? Where and when it is able to offer solutions is the best way to lead you directly to Truth. Which other "method" has better results if not Logic then??

each of them, of course, believes his world view is the only correct — stoicHoneyBadger

That's exactly why they aren't equally logical and don't practice Logic at all. They just think they do.That has nothing to do with Logic though!

Mercy on Socrates.

stoicHoneyBadger

↪dimosthenis9

Dear God first time I see someone is accused for corrupting others with too much... Logic!! What a bastard Socrates was, indeed!!
I really can't understand why so many people here are against Logic!
As long as I am here to this forum that's what I found most shocking and it was the biggest surprise to me!
What the fuck Logic has done to you people of Philosophy Forum and you attack to it so badly?? Is it a sign of ages? Maybe, cause societies seem to underestimate Logic more and more!
The worst that someone can accuse Logic for, is that can't offer solution to everything!! OK. So?? Where and when it is able to offer solutions is the best way to lead you directly to Truth. Which other "method" has better results if not Logic then??

As explained above, logic seems to work well when you know all the relevant parameters, yet is pretty much useless when some of them are missing. Basically in such case you get "garbage in - garbage out" kind of a scenario.

Continuing the analogy of instincts as a general and logic as a soldier - a good soldier uses his skills ( logic ) to find the best way of executing his general's orders, instead of double-questioning it. Since he does not have the full picture which the general has, he would not be able to logically evaluate his decision.

Not all instincts are good for us.If I have the instinct to fuck a woman I see at the market should I go and rape her as to obey my instinct?

Your instinct is to fuck here. Your logic is supposed to come up with a way how to do it in a most productive manner, without getting in trouble, etc. So introducing yourself and asking her out might a good starting point.

Apollodorus

Socratic dialogues usually end with "see, it just proves we don't know anything. have a good night.", — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't think this is really true. Socrates is not a skeptic. He certainly uses logic to demonstrate established beliefs such as immortality, reincarnation, and the other world, as in the Phaedo.

The point Socrates is making is not that we should hold no beliefs (on the grounds that we know nothing) but that we should avoid holding unexamined beliefs.

In the course of recounting his conversations with others, Socrates says something enigmatic: “About myself I knew that I know nothing” (22d; cf. Fine 2008). The context of the dialogue allows us to read this pronouncement as unproblematical. Socrates knows that he does not know about important things. Interpreted in this manner, Socrates does not appear to be a skeptic in the sense that he would profess to know nothing. Even though some readers (ancient and modern) found such an extreme statement in the Apology, a more plausible reading suggests that Socrates advocates the importance of critically examining one’s own and others’ views on important matters, precisely because one does not know about them (Vogt 2012a, ch. 1). Such examination is the only way to find out.

Ancient Skepticism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Socrates got it all wrong and deserved his hemlock - some thoughts, feel free to criticize please. )

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions