Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Who is better - Plato or Socrates?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by goofie roofie (U3876241) on Friday, 28th April 2006
Just wondering what the general opinion about this question is.
-
Message 2
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 28th April 2006
I don't know if you can really compare Plato and Socrates. Plato was a student of Socrates, and basically everything we know about Socrates is from the writings of Plato.
-
Message 3
Posted by Jay walker (U685047) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
Plato believed in decieving the population in voting in order to get the ''Right People'' in power. He also advocated child murder by leaving 'Unwanted'' girls out on the hillside to die. Almost anyone would be better, I should think.
-
Message 4
Posted by goofie roofie (U3876241) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
Plato believed in decieving the population in voting in order to get the ''Right People'' in power. He also advocated child murder by leaving 'Unwanted'' girls out on the hillside to die. Almost anyone would be better, I should think.Β
While such advocations may be unacceptable by our standards surely when considered against the backdrop of Greek society they become somewhat less horrific. Although I don't beleive that infanticide is justifiable, I think that Plato was suggesting methods whereby the population numbers could be maintained rather than advocating brutality. However, I do think that Pericles idea of limiting citizenship to the legitimate children of Athenian parents was somewhat more effective in accomplishing the desired population decrease. Also, although this is hardly much of a comfort, not all the exposed girls actually died, there are records of them being 'adopted' by brothels and trained as prostitutes. -
Message 5
Posted by U3090818 (U3090818) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
I agree, some things ancient people considered to be okay would be horrific by today's standards, but that is because our society is trained to react in certain ways to different things. If you grew up in ancient times, you probably wouldn't find things such as infanticide nearly as, if at all, disagreeable.
-
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
Judging ancient (or simply different) societies with our standards is the most idiotic thing one may do. Societal customs and perceptions are most often based on the needs of each society.
The ancient Greek societies including "cultured Athend" were down to the basics, militaristic societies, thus anything that deviated much from that paradigm was considered as something to be left out. for example it is 100% understandable that they would not give rights to 'metoikoi' (immigrants) and slaves. The full rights of the cities were for nobody else but for those who really considered the city as their own. "Metoikoi" were financial immigrants occupied with commerce, but then would stay there as long as there was commercial success, thus down to the basics they would not care 100% the same as citizen Athenians, hence these were taxed and called to join the army only in extreme situations (and usually in 2ndary positions, away from the battle fronts). Slaves also were 'foreigners' who formed the lower workforce but then it should not be perceived that they led 'ugly lifes' - we know that a poor Athenian citizen had lower standards of living compared to the majority of slaves. Again slaves were not called in the front line and were used only in 2ndary and 3rd-class positions (usually as archers guarding etc.). If anyone is critical about all these then he should check up the miserable level of working classes in countries like USA (were up to 30% of population lives in miserable poverty - better in Uganda than there living like that!) or UK or Germany and France (you saw what happened in Paris recently)... well in most ancient Greek cities they did not have such things to that extend.
Now as long as we talk about the treatment of children, the case was that as in all societies around the world up to today, male children were favoured as these contoinued the name of the family (cos 'families' and 'names' existed always in ancient cities under any type of state). Thus a poor family that could not raise more than 2-3-4 children would 'get rid off' the child, especially if this was a girl. That is no different on what is going on today pretty much around the world. That does not mean the child was killed or whatever, it was simply left 'in the woods' (probably nearby a temple or something) where a happy childless woman would find it to adopt it (in the sense 'Zeus has sent it to me!') or a happy priest would adopt it to add it in his group of priestesses. That could be the fate of an illegitimate child - especially if it was the outcome of a rape or something (do not forget these cities had internal wars every couple of year!), that is 100% natural to happen.
And as for the retarded ones... what more to say, it was 100% natural and ethical in my opinion for parents not to raise retarded and ill children. It might sound harsh for you but then go back in those times when food was not found in supermarkets reached by motorised vehicles and where even the most socialist state did not have the capacity to pay specialised nurses to take care of children doomed anyway to day at the age of 10 or 15 or even if they lived they would give absolutely nothing to society. Hence these babies/children were left out to die - perhaps only very rich families could have the means to go on raising such kids though I doubt that they would do given the fact that that would lower their status as a family.
In societies when it was 100% normal that 1/2 kids would anyway die before reaching 10 years old then all these were 100 normal. Nothing new under the sun as these were the normal even 50-80 years back in most if not all regions in the world. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
As long as who was better, Socrates or Plato, well, from what Plato says (cos we know Socrates through Plato), Socrates has to had been the best of them since most if not all of his ideas are really lasting till today having been rejected by very few, unlike Plato whose certain ideas have been repeatedly rejected by many. In anyway Socrates was not a rich spoiled kid like Plato - he had started from a modest background and with a modest education and we know that even in democratic Athens that was an achievement (since very few of teachers, politicians or other public men would be of modest backgrounds, most would be from well known families just like it happens today).
Socrates is the best therefore, but then personally I find my friend Ebedoklis even better (though we know fewer about him, he must had been really the coolest - having talked about 'crazy things' in his times like DNA and such!!!). He had spent half his father's money to help the people in need and the other half on his quest for knowledge - imagine he was given a whole city to govern as a king since people really loved his father and adored him like a god but then he rejected! He was so cool that he even played with the image that people had about him thus when visiting cities he would enter walking but wearing a red luxury chiton and a golden tiara like a god. Now that is what I call philosophy. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
I think the question "Who is better..." should be placed in the past tense as both footballers have long since hung up their boots. Plato had an undistinguished career, the highlight of which was a turn out for the Botafogo Reserves in a friendly against Fluminese in March 1967 (in which he was sent off). Socrates, on the other hand, represented his country Brazil for many years and will always be remembered for that amazing shot in their doomed encounter with Italy in the 1982 World Cup Tournament that raised a little cloud of chalk dust from the goal-line on its way into the net at a recorded speed of 85.3 kmph.
No competition. -
Message 9
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
there is no difference whatsoever between plato and socrates....philosophically they are the same.
either plato was using socrates as a mouthpeice, or he was enamoured of socrates' ideas that he just regurgitated them in prose form until a long time after his (socrates) death, at which stage he evidently started thinking for himself...although there are doubts as to the authenticity of "plato's" later works if i remember correctly -
Message 10
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Saturday, 6th May 2006
to E-Nikolaos
When was Ebokalis (spelling) writing? Aristotle wrote on inherited genes and inherant traits. Have no ref books when I am as ever, travelling.
Just for the record, is there anything about Ancient Greeks that you find inexcuseable?
Just curious, regards P. -
Message 11
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 6th May 2006
Embedoklis was writing before Aristotle and talks of the four primeval elements of earth fire air and water, a view he shared with the Hippocrattic school, Nick has just confaletd this to suggest they knew about DNA. You might as well suggest the Ascelepian symbol demonstrates knowledge of DNA as it shows two snakes wrapped in a double helix but thet is just coincidence. He was a sophist who used striking clothes to attract attention and draw people to his lectures.
-
Message 12
Posted by U3090818 (U3090818) on Saturday, 6th May 2006
I think it's hard to answer the question "who is better?", because, really, neither is better, they're just different.
-
Message 13
Posted by U3090818 (U3090818) on Saturday, 6th May 2006
was***
-
Message 14
Posted by U3090818 (U3090818) on Saturday, 6th May 2006
Sorry that was really bad grammar.
-
Message 15
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 6th May 2006
Alright, technically Embedoklis might not have written anything other than his own lecture notes and the idea was attributed to him by other commentators who heard him speak but he predates Aristotle all the same.
-
Message 16
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Is that the same Empedocles who wore trousers, was reputed to be able to control the winds and after getting bored with the futility of it all jumped into Mt Etna? He laso wrote a beautiful poem extoling the virtues of a vegetarian diet in whihch he spoke about destroying the 'splendid limbs' of animals. Instead we should all sacrifice fruit to Aphrodite. I'll try and dig out the poem when I've got a minute.
-
Message 17
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Seems to be, mind you there is an awful lot of poetry attributed to various figures that may well have been written by other contemporaries just as would occur later with literary treatise, see Aristotle's alleged Constitution of the Athenians. Speaking of which he does seem to be drawing from the Pythagorean well with his attitude to ritual sacrafice but they were quite influnential in Southern Italy although they would be chased from the Greek cities once mountain groups like Bruttians, Luccanians and Samnites started to threaten their security.
-
Message 18
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Okay, found it. The lines are from a fragment of a poem called 'Purifications' and look back to that golden age of the Pelasgians "Her (Aphrodite) did they propitiate with holy gifts, with painted figures and perfumes of cunning fragrancy, with offerings of pure myrrh and sweet-smelling frankincense, casting on the ground libations of brown honey. And the altar did not reek with pure bull's blood, but this was held in the greatest abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after tearing out the life" Empedocles seems to be associated with that thread of shamanic thought introduced from the Black Sea area and transmitted via the Ionian Greeks and the preSocratic philosophers, with a lot of his themes echoing Pythagoras and his ideas on the old metemphychosis.
-
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Yes, many Pythagoreians (I do not think it was all of them) supported the idea of vegetarianism and that was really revolutionary in meat-loving Greek cities that waited for celebrations where a hecatomb (sacrifice of 100 cows) was taking place - which must had been really cool as for the poor it was their only chance to eat some protein and 1000 of miles away from the propaganda of christians who only managed to make the poor return to an almost vegeterian diet again!
No doubt their vegetarianism never made them so popular around the Greek world, not to mention all those about 're-incarnation' - do not forget that the idea of death was not even changed after millenia of stronger than ever christian propaganda as we are yet to find a greek poem from the 1 A.D. to 2006 A.D. which mentions paradise and hell or re-incarnation or such other eastern things, they all mention places like Hades and guys like Haron (the name comes from river Aheron that lead to Hades). Songs about dying and going 'to the sky' are really recent (bouzouki was invented in the 1920, and reinvented in the 50s thus less than 100 years old)! What hope had the Pythagoreians with their eastern mystiscism? Not much.
However, the re-incarnation and the vegetarianism are a nice hint that seems to be in accordance with the story that wants Pythagoras to have travelled up to India. Pythagoras had been a rich man, he could afford travelling that far, in his times there existed the Persian Empire that was 'connecting' Minor Asia up to western India thus had he taken a permit (in practical terms of those times that means help and security in his journey) he might had as well reached India and spoken to the local philosophers/priests and got such influences.
Ebedoklis though was not 100% a philosopher not 100% a sophist, he had been a Pythagoreian but he was kicked out because he was revealing their 'secrets' to the common people to ridicule their attitudes toward society - he was really a hell of a guy. Imagine that he preferred to write his ideas not in texts but in poems (which was actually an earlier tradition, just like Parmenidis, said to be a philosopher but personally I find him more of a magician). He was a real super-star.
Now, why did I mention DNA? Cos Ebedoklis had made the observation that all living things from animals and plants must have their 'material' in common that can be traced to 4 roots which in their turn can be traced to 20 sub-roots. Of course Ebedoklis uses poetic language but the above description is most descriptive. Ok, he may had been a genious and thought of the common matter in living things but how come 4 and not 7, 12, 98, 343 or 5391? In another of his few sentences saved (we have only about 300-400 hundred sentences saved - thanks to mainly christian contribution, you guessed what I mean...) he mentions that in the beggining living things had other appearence and crawled on the earth and shapes had been really weird and that hands and legs and eyes were here and there until they combined into different shapes of which the most successful had been the current... well, though funny enough, that is a pretty much explicit description of evolution.
Was Ebedoklis a smart guy? Of course. But not because he invented all the above, but because he read some of the above (or similar), they gathered his interest (unlike that of 99,99% of his contemporaries) and he combined them to make his own philosophy. Truly a great guy and perhaps the best of all (his contemporaries (200-300 years until christianism) held him higher than the likes of Plato or Aristotle.
Imagine that throughout the middle ages in the west (of course referring to Italy cos the rest did not know to read and write) all they knew was Aristotle (only in Byzantium they knew others too and had some of their own) - imagine that Plato was introduced by Neoplatonic (fanatic anti-christian) Plithon Gemistos (another great guy larger than life) in the religious convention of Ferrara in the late 14th century where he had the chance to present Plato to Italians and had made such an impression to them that some say it was such a fashion (semi-illiterate rich Venetian merchants paying millions for books they could not read themselves and investing in schools!) that perhaps we may attribute the whole Rennaissance movement to Plithon himself.
The moral teaching is simply that from what we know Socrates might had been the best, but from what the ancient left, it seems there was really a large number of philosophers that could rival them easily - not to mention the sophists in front of which most philosophers could hardly stand a chance (Ebedoklis apart from Pythagoreian was also educated in sophism thus he practically knew many schools at the same time).
PS: The above goes also to all the non-greek philosophers that existed, wrote or narrated but their name has been lost in time. It is always a damage when an idea no matter how bad it is, it is lost. -
Message 20
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Thanks E_Nikolaos_E
I've always pictured Greek sacrifice to be like a huge sacred barbeque, with all that roasted meat, libated in wine, and the sweet sweet smell rising up to the gods. The rich getting the prime cuts. I thought that sacrifice was (amongst other things)a way of reinforcing the social hierarchy, and that only citizens were allowed to partake. The poor would remain disenfranchised and would be very lucky to get even the merest scrap. This was one of the many reasons Christianity became so popular - it was open to all, rich & poor, male and female, gentile and jew. Maybe I'm wrong on that score, though.
With regards to Empedocles and Pythagoras I always found those shamanic figures and some of the claims surrounding them absolutely fascinating. If I remember correctly from my studies (many years ago, I'm afraid) Pythagoras was put forward by the Neoplatonists as a repost to the claims Christians were making about Christ. For example the virgin birth was countered by Pythagoras's name - mouthpiece of Apollo; His golden thigh, which was spotted when he was a spectator at the Olympics, was a mark of his divinity. His miracles included persuading a bear to give up eating meat and he was reported to have bi-located, that is to be in two places at the same time. He was also given the arrow of Abaris which enabled him (Abaris) to travel like the wind. All this a good half a millenium before the impaled Nazarene. Also, I seem to remember that although the Pythagorians were against eating meat they did partake in the civic sacrifice as to not do so would have barred them from any political involvement. Good old political expediency. -
Message 21
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Nick, sugegsting that there is a material beginning and that it was made up of four base elemnts is equivelent to DNA sequencing being arrangemnts of four letters in different combinations is a bit of a leap, it does not mean Empedicles had developed an idea of DNA. Mind you we got sidetracked by Parmenides of Elea's suggesting that something cannot come from nothing for some reason, you know even the wickedest djin must wrap lies in a grain of truth and all that.
As such it is true there were few borders between the Greek speaking Aegean and the Indus valley after the Persian conquests and many Greeks did see the East as a fountain of knowledge until the Ionian revolt. Not sure if they has to go all the way to India to hear of ideas shared by Jainism and Buddhism however.
But anyway, so far as I can see Hesiod seems to have co-opted Anatolian mythology for his divine pantheon and his succession myth, not to mention his and Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr's view of the underworld. Seems Hesiod's dad brought more stories than goods back from his trading voyages. Paradise appears to be a bit further East at this point, it always is apparently, and spread along the Indian Ocean trade routes whereas Greek mariners were sailing around the Black Sea. On the other hand he is aware of certain Phoenecian cults such as Adon reflecting the Greek worlds interaction with the Levant. Mind you Issaiah has a slightly more sophisticated view on the value of sacrafice in pleasing the Gods than Hesiod who is far more concerned about cheating them by offering bones and the fat as opposed to the prime cut of the sacrafice. -
Message 22
Posted by bobandkate (U3816271) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
We only know what Socrates said because Plato wrote it down. Or, if you think about it, we only have Plato's word for what Socrates is supposed to have said.
Kate.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.