The Socratic method is based on the premise that knowledge is maieutic and obstetrical. 1)individual participates 2) Goes through the elenchus 3) “the teacher casts “doubt” often leading to aporia. It can be compared to the empirical method.
*to live a good life you honor the demos more than blood.
The morality of ancient Greece is grossly discriminating. Its interesting to note though, that Socrates doesn’t discriminate against enemies or social inferiors (women, foreigners, slaves). The only place he made notable suggestions in regards to advocating change were limited to enemies though.
*the elenchus forces opinions without knowledge or correct logic to support it to concede to destruction.
Socrates and Plato differ in their uses of “Form”; Plato introduces a different perspective through Platonic Metaphysics.
The concept of Form is explained through a metaphysical story. Before we had bodies, we were in a spirit world. There, we had perfect contact with Forms (ideals). These Forms are the ideal structures of ideals (beauty, love, hatred, etc…). They are a concept in it’s purest, rawest, most perfect form. They are utterly transcendant and we forget what we know about what we learn in the spirit world when we’re born. This innate knowledge is brought back to an extent through the Socratic method.
*eidos = idea/essence of Form. They are immanent (inherent); ex: If i do a pious act the ideal of piety is in the action itself.
When discussing qualities, an objective standard should be applied.
*Socrates was an elitist. He believed the majority to usually be incorrect.
Notre Dame, Paris
The US and French declarations both arose in the late 1700’s and were heavily influenced by the enlightenment, where the authors focused primarily of virtues, rationality and logic.
Enlightenment periods have seemed to simply serve as reiterations of previous periods in humanity, so as far as we think we’re going, according to history, we won’t be far enough.
But if we take enlightenment ideals to perfection, or to the furthest linear point on an infinite scale, would things eventually become finite? We could theoretically know everything. The concept on enlightenment gives light to the concept of transcendence and provides the opportunity for a radical reorder of the “universe”- we can do whatever we want including not only the ability to create, but to destroy.
The enlightenment also caused a separation of religion and knowledge.
I think I’m going to start recapping all of my notes, thoughts and stuff on here as a small way to study.
A kanji saying
People aren’t a finite thing. There is no limit to growth and action and we fear the possibilities of what can come from that. But we also revere the amazing things that can be created through this limitlessness, and we kill our old selves everyday to be someone new, better, or different to achieve it.
You are not who were yesterday, and tomorrow you will not be who you were today.
The art of loneliness is a talent I’ve well developed. You think that I would be used to it by now.
It’s easier to be cynical, but being hopeful is ironically usually more satisfying.
Although, being cynical can be satisfying enough.
How to save a fish from drowning- the answer is simple, but the process is hard.