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? — Amity

Actually I went back and re-wrote that passage, it was the opposite of what I had meant to say. I meant to say there's a strong tension between traditional philosophy and modern culture (hence I added the word 'suspicion'.)

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...? — Amity

It's a very tricky issue. I went to University with a convinced proponent of 'the traditionalists' who introduced me to them, including René Guenon and Frithjof Schuon. Guenon was a Frenchman who migrated to Egypt and wrote on esoteric and Eastern philosophy, his Wiki entry was here. 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' (if indeed that is what it is). I've done some more reading and changed my view a little - there's a good scholarly book on 'the perennialists' called Against the Modern World, Mark Sedgewick. It makes their antagonism towards modernity and liberalism pretty clear. Nevertheless I think they're worth knowing about - I heard Bernardo Kastrup railing against them recently, that they're a cult movement with no scholarly integrity, but I don't agree with that, either.

In any case, they're hardly the only ones who are 'against modernity'. There are many critiques of post-Enlightenment philosophy, including some from the New Left (see the Critique of Instrumental Reason). 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.

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.

That much is clear but it is not evidently the case in the article. — Amity

I don't know, I would imagine that feminist epistemology of all things would work as an example. But otherwise, I hope she sees this!

It is not always easy to separate the different prejudices. — Amity

Really? Not even in the example I provided?

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

Did you use AI at any point in "our discussion"? Just curious.

No. Did you?

Plato is tricky on the issue of 'reverence for the past' as a political form of life. In the Statesman, 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.

But the rule of men means the party is over:

Str: 275B And it was for these reasons we included the myth, in order to point out not only that when it comes to herd nurture, everyone nowadays disputes over that title with the person we are looking for, but also to discern more clearly, based upon the example of shepherds and neatherds, the one person whom it is appropriate, in view of his care for the nurture of humanity, to deem worthy of this title alone.

Y Soc: Rightly so.

Str: And yet, Socrates, I really think that this figure of the divine herdsman is even greater than that of a king, 275C while the statesmen of the present day have natures much more like those whom they rule over, and they share in an education and nurture, closer to their subjects. — Plato, Statesman, 275a

That is close to the thinking of Rousseau invoking the Noble Savage.

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.

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?

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.

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? — Amity

I am also nostalgic for both. I enjoyed our conversation.

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.

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

The allegory of the cave requires a region outside of it to work. This gives rise to many problems of how greater knowledge of the real relates to the making of images inside the cave. Parmenides pointed out several of them to the actual young Socrates long before the action of the Republic. (Plato screwing with our heads yet again). In any case, there is tension that comes with using the allegory that is greater than any particular explanation it provides.

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.

My personal interpretation of the 'city in words' is that it is not a plan or a constitution but a deed to Socrates' city. His claim to try and change it. And he did not leave it when he could have because that would have meant giving up his claim.

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

I don't think it is a one-way street though. — Fooloso4

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve?

No, but I understand that "The Good" is nonbeing. — 180 Proof

Do you mean that the good is "extinction" in the early Buddhist sense of nirvana? Or do you mean that the Good is not a being, and is also not being itself? Or something else?

I understand the Good to be being in the sense of flourishing, actualizing potential, and also care for others. When I say I don't know what the Good is I mean I don't know what its universal definition could be—what is good, what constitutes flourishing, for me may not be so for another. But then there would presumably be some common elements in what is good for everyone, insofar as we are all human and thus social beings.

I know that if she's a mortal, then she cannot "know" ... — 180 Proof

:up: It's a tricky word indeed that "know"! But I think you point to something salient when you make the distinction between understanding and knowing—we all have our own understandings of what is good.

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve? — Janus

Consider people who get involved in cults?

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve? — Janus

Yes, that was my read of the response. I guess that sounds fair.

What I have observed is that a little bit of philosophy can mess with people'e thinking and relationships. You know the kinds of thing, the bumptious young men who think they are Nietzsche's heirs, the enervated Rorty acolytes who can't commit to anything at all. The elitist Platonists who... maybe I'll just leave that one there.

Seems to me that one's disposition is important here. I've never been drawn to philosophy (by this I mean deep reading/studying) But I am interested enough to want an overview of key themes and directions. And I certainly understand that we are all the product of philosophical presuppositions, but so what?

The idea of exploring what is the good or truth or the nature of wisdom seems pretty tedious to me and does not match how I experience life. Critical thinking takes care of these matters pragmatically. Perhaps what it comes down to is this - I am not trying to solve any mysteries of existence or engaged in a poetic quest for self-knowledge. Sorry, rant over.

Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories? — Fooloso4

I'm not entirely sure what this quesion involves. Isn't human knowledge a story, or a series of interrelated, overlapping narratives? Can you say some more on this?

Just found this on IEP's article about animism:

It has been argued that the liberation of women is a project which cannot be disentangled from the liberation of (and political recognition of) the environment. The objectification of nature is seen as an aspect of patriarchy, which may be undone by the acceptance of an ethics of care which acknowledges the existence of non-human persons.

Terrible day for being literate.

Consider people who get involved in cults? — wonderer1

Could they not learn from that experience? Perhaps in some cases to go down for a while is the only way to continue on the way up.

Seems to me that one's disposition is important here. I've never been drawn to philosophy (by this I mean deep reading/studying) But I am interested enough to want an overview of key themes and directions. And I certainly understand that we are all the product of philosophical presuppositions, but so what? — Tom Storm

I think studying philosophers excessively is a scholarly, and not so much a philosophical exercise. I mean I want to get an understanding of the whole tradition, and that task is enough to occupy considerable time, so I don't see much value in going down the Kantian or Hegelian rabbit-holes. With Plato and Aristotle, I think it is a bit different since they are doing "first philosophy" not elaborate system-building.

Anyway, the import of philosophy is only insofar as thinking about philosophical issues and the self0critiuqe that might enable, helps you to live better. Otherwise, it would just be a nerdy interest to pass your time with.

In interacting on here I am most interested in those who present their own ideas in their own words and not so much those who post lengthy excerpts from their favorite philosophers or who direct you to read some philosophical work or other.

I am not trying to solve any mysteries of existence or engaged in a poetic quest for self-knowledge. — Tom Storm

You strike me as someone who is vitally interested in self-knowledge or self-understanding, as well as knowledge and understanding of others. I count that as doing philosophy, whether it be poetic, scholarly or not.

Could they not learn from that experience? Perhaps in some cases to go down for a while is the only way to continue on the way up. — Janus

As a resident of MAGA world, I certainly hope so.

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?

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?

Thanks 180. Good to be with you again. — Amity

Yes hello! I hope you are well (or at least feeling better now that the Tories have been sacked). :flower:

Hope your story-telling is still going strong?

I'm afraid not: the Muse has been gone for several months ...

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.

:up: Sisyphus' amor fati.

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.

:clap: Memento mori, ergo memento vivere.

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?

From the Republic:

Now, those who belong to this small group [those who are worthy to consort with philosophy] have tasted the sweetness and blessedness of this possession, and can also see the madness of the multitude quite well, realising that in a sense no one does anything reasonable in the conduct of civic affairs, nor is there an ally with whom a man could go to the aid of justice and still survive. Instead, he is like a man who has fallen in with wild animals, has no desire to conspire in wrongdoing but is not up to the task of resisting all their savagery, a man who will perish before he is of any benefit to the city or his friends, and would be of no use to himself or anyone else. Having understood all this through reflection, he is at peace, and attends to his own affairs, like a man in a storm of wind-driven dust and rain who crouches beneath a low wall. And seeing that all else is crammed full of lawlessness, he is content if somehow he can live this life here purified of injustice and unholy deeds, and take his departure with good hope, gracious and kindly as he goes.” (496 a-e)

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve? — Janus

As it moves toward something, for example, the quest for certainty or linguistic analysis, it moves away from something vital to philosophy, the examined life.

Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories?
— Fooloso4

I'm not entirely sure what this quesion involves. Isn't human knowledge a story, or a series of interrelated, overlapping narratives? Can you say some more on this? — Tom Storm

The closing question relates to the opening question. Although it is not meant to close off but open up further consideration. What one expects from philosophy may determine how one thinks about the place of stories. I agree with you regarding narrative. The opening question is an invitation to narrative reflection.

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 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:

'What is a Socratic philosopher?' — Amity

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.

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

Wittgenstein said:

When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there.

(Culture and Value)

I started a thread Wittgenstein the Socratic a few months ago. I do not think that Socrates was tormented by indeterminacy, but early on Wittgenstein was. He eventually came to see that the need for complete clarity was misguided.

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.

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

Not so strange.

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.

Right, and it seems arguable that becoming preoccupied with the propositional aspects of philosophy in general, as though it could be an empirically determined subject that can deliver testable truths, would be a move away from the examined life

Not so strange. — Fooloso4

Zeno was a merchant until he was exposed to the teachings of Socrates (l. c. 470/469 to 399 BCE), the iconic Greek philosopher through a book by one of Socrates' students, Xenophon (l. 430 to c. 354 BCE), known as the Memorabilia. This book contained conversations with Socrates, his philosophy, and Xenophon's memories of the time spent as his student. Zeno was so completely captivated by the work that he left his former profession and dedicated himself to the study of philosophy, eventually becoming a teacher himself. — WHE

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.

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?