- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,135
- Reaction score
- 58,868
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Scholars and historians who try to gather accurate information about Socrates face a peculiar problem, known as the Socratic problem. This problems arise due to 3 key features - There is no proof that Socrates ever wrote anything, philosophical or biographical.
Whatever information we derive about Socrates is from the works of 4 scholars namely - Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Aristophanes.
The writings are in an artistic and creative style, therefore creating a doubt whether these details are truth or fiction.
So the information on Socrates that is available cannot be proved and has no historical evidence. If the evidence is only through the writings of his associates, there is doubt that Socrates ever existed or he was an imaginary character in his students writings to explain their philosophy.
The Socratic problem
Forming an accurate picture of the historical Socrates and his philosophical viewpoints is problematic at best. This issue is known as the Socratic problem.
Socrates did not write philosophical texts. The knowledge of the man, his life, and his philosophy is based on writings by his students and contemporaries. Foremost among them is Plato; however, works by Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes also provide important insights.[4] The difficulty of finding the “real” Socrates arises because these works are often philosophical or dramatic texts rather than straightforward histories. Aside from Thucydides (who makes no mention of Socrates or philosophers in general) and Xenophon, there are in fact no straightforward histories contemporary with Socrates that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan (those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament). Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various texts that come from these men to create an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, merely consistent.
Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy.[5] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. Parsing which Socrates—the "real" one, or Plato's own mouthpiece—Plato is using at any given point is a matter of much debate.
However, it is also clear from other writings, and historical artifacts that Socrates was not simply a character, or invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), can be usefully engaged in fleshing out our perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.
Too bad historical records are crappy and we have to take some things on faith.
Good thing my eternal destiny doesn't rest in his hands, then, huh?
How could it if he didn't exist?
Indeed. There are literally dozens of ancient Egyptian Pharaoh's without any historical mention whatsoever beyond Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived in the Ptolemaic era. Yet Egyptology is fundamentally based on Manetho's dynastic system.Too bad historical records are crappy and we have to take some things on faith.
Then his existence is rather unimportant, eh?
Can you say the same thing about your savior?
I think the point is that despite evidence, people don't question the existence of Socrates. Yet they question the existence of religious figures when we do indeed have more proof for their existence than we do for Socrates.
The point is that historical records are often crappy and the whole "this guy did or did not exist" is fundamentally silly due to that fact.
No. The point is that if this is the only means by which to reach eternal life, and without this person, you are doomed to an eternity of suffering and separation from God, then he did a piss poor job with advertising and promotions.
Exceptional claims require exceptional levels of evidence.
No one is suggesting that Socrates died for our sins, performed miracles during his life, was born of a virgin, was resurrected after three days, and will sit on high to judge our eternal destiny. Hence, whether or not he existed is really more of an exercise in mental masturbation than anything else.
But, the followers of Jesus, called the Christ, make all of the above outrageous claims, including that Jesus, called the Christ, is the only way by which man can connect to God. Mohammed's followers make similar claims.
As a fan of Socrates, I've only ever suggested that he provides good tips on formatting reasonable and coherent arguments.
If jesus Christ, as advertised, is the only way to God, then God wasn't very interested in being found.
Socrates did not write philosophical texts. The knowledge of the man, his life, and his philosophy is based on writings by his students and contemporaries.
Moderator's Warning: |
Megaprogman never existed, this thread is simply a forgery, a conglomeration of earlier threads that coalesced into one for the sake of convenience.
We're already on a planet that's full of suffering perpetuated by ignorance(most people lack the willpower or even the desire to consciously shape their lives). We already seem to be seperate from God.No. The point is that if this is the only means by which to reach eternal life, and without this person, you are doomed to an eternity of suffering and separation from God, then he did a piss poor job with advertising and promotions.
Or belief. One is sometimes shocked when they change their beliefs to see how differently the world functions from this new vantage point.Exceptional claims require exceptional levels of evidence.
You could call me a follower of Christ and I make none of those claims. Most of those claims are made by churches, whose members can sometimes be known to leave their brain at the door when they enter. Thus, we get people proselytizing and condemning others in Jesus' name. This is suffering due to ignorance.But, the followers of Jesus, called the Christ, make all of the above outrageous claims, including that Jesus, called the Christ, is the only way by which man can connect to God. Mohammed's followers make similar claims.
These debates, if you can call them such while amusing are quite unreasonable. You simply cannot argue faith as fact. Now while I see no reasons for believers to perhaps debate the text of the bible or the like, both parties are believers and take the material as fact. To argue faith with one who does not subscribe to the beliefs in quesiton is futile and seriously unproductive to either side.
Apparently some (many?) people do question the existence of socrates.I think the point is that despite evidence, people don't question the existence of Socrates.
This is a strawman argument.Yet they question the existence of religious figures when we do indeed have more proof for their existence than we do for Socrates.
Gentlemen,
It seems that we have some issues with the historicity of the existence of Socrates.
Socrates
Socrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Too bad historical records are crappy and we have to take some things on faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?