1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 07, 2019, 08:46:55 PM »

I think when looking at the evidence for Socrates existence, there is very little, if any, and what’s there only works because people are looking to support what they believe, and not trying to answer the question without bias.

I think if anything, the evidence is so illogical that it more likely points to Plato having created the character of Socrates as a means of expressing his philosophy, which is a device others have used as well.

The evidence for his existence (from people supposedly living during his time):

Plato is the almost sole source of evidence we have for Socrates existence, with the two additional accepted sources being his only other student Xenophon (which translates to Foreign Voice) where Socrates appeared in two of his works (though for one of them, Xenophon was at war and not with Socrates when he tells the story of his trial) and the playwright Aristophanes where in his play “Clouds” (423 BC), there is a character named Socrates who is mocked as a sophist and a fool.

The counter-evidence:

1.   Socrates was supposedly a well-known Athenian figure, Philosopher, and teacher who lived to 71 years old before he was sentenced to death (one of the charges was for “Corrupting the youth with philosophy”, which, as an aside, is reminiscent of the “We’re doing it to protect the children” cry every time someone is about to pass an unjust and usually asinine law that makes life worse – some things never change).  Yet in all that time, he only 2 students?  Even if Plato had been 10 when he started studying under Socrates that still leaves 55 years of his life where he taught no one at all – yet he was supposedly a prominent figure.

2.   There is no known writing by Socrates, nor is there any other thing produced by him.  In 71 years one of the world’s most famous philosophers didn’t write 1 word (he must be friends with Jesus).

3.   After decades as a prominent Athenian figure, there is not 1 record anywhere of Socrates (besides his 2 student’s writings) –there wasn’t even a record of his trial and sentence, which would seem to have been something worth recording.

4.   The first time Plato writes of Socrates (and the first time we can be certain he is being written about) is estimated to be 399 BC – the year Socrates dies.  Why didn’t Plato ever write Socratic Dialogues when Socrates was alive?  Wouldn’t things have been fresher in his memory?  Why wait?

5.   The last dialogue Plato wrote was estimated to be between 361 – 347 BC.  That means for somewhere between 38 and 52 years Plato wrote accounts of the dialogues Socrates had had.  Why did it take so long?  I hope he had taken good notes.

6.   The name Socrates, per one source of unknown reliability, means “whole, unwounded, safe” and “power”.  So, the wise man who knew he knew nothing and was therefore unbeatable (Socrates), had a name that meant “unwounded power”.

7.   Plato writes in Letter ii (authenticity disputed by some based on their opinion only): “no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist, but those now said to be his are those of a Socrates become beautiful and new”.  My interpretation, Socrates is finally “born” in Plato as his voice, and the result of Plato’s spiritual death (completely made up theory based on nothing more than my beliefs).

8.   According to Plato, Socrates thought Democracy was dangerous and that it would inevitably lead to “mob rule” (Ochlocracy).  Funny then how the democratic system (500 jurors with a majority rule vote) found him guilty by a small margin – thereby having Democracy sentence to death one of the greatest philosophical figures in history.  Good way to illustrate mob rule and make Democracy look exactly like what it is.

9.   Plato was at Socrates trial, but he was not at Socrates Execution?  A guess is all I can make, but were Socrates the manifestation of Plato, it would seem right he couldn’t attend his death (and Plato’s spiritual death).  But again, just an unfounded idea.

10.   Plato was originally thought to be born in 428 BC however now estimates are 424-423 and if that’s accurate then coincidentally Plato would have been born the year the play “’Clouds” (the only other known source to mention Socrates other than his students) was written and performed.  An alternate theory which is equally as plausible is Plato took the name from the play that came out the year he was born and uses it to create a history of believability for Socrates.  He even ties his Socrates to that character in possibly the first writing of Socrates – Plato’s “The Apology”, by having Socrates tell the jury (paraphrased) “that because of his inaccurate depiction in the play Clouds, they may have the wrong idea of who he is”.  So Plato makes that connection for all of us.  Also, as there was a supposed rivalry between playwright and philosopher at that time, so what better way to make Aristophanes look the fool than by taking his mocked Socrates and turning him into a wise sage?

11.   Regardless of the previous point, using “Clouds” as a reliable source to prove Socrates existence is rather baseless.  Basically, there was a play that had a character with the same name and he was a bad philosopher.  That’s it?  That’s nothing.

12.   Why would Plato do this?  Try writing a book telling people the right way to think and see how many of them end up thinking you’re a know-it-all and obnoxious (or just read the comments posted here).  But if you use a character that isn’t you – someone who has built-in credibility because of the history you give them, someone who doesn’t even claim to be wise, but rather that he knows nothing – you now have a voice people can learn from without getting defensive.

All that speculation on my part aside, the burden of proof rests on those who think Socrates lived, so if you have any, feel free to provide it.

Without stronger evidence, this seems like one of countless mistakes made by Historians, and possibly another foundational belief not true.

-Using my BDE to help us out of BED

Thanks.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Stephen Hawking, you sneaky little Geocentrist

« on: April 04, 2019, 08:04:16 PM »

You know that illusion where the moon sometimes looks a lot bigger than usual?  Cool, hold on to that please.
Stephen Hawking wastes no time in a Brief History of Time (I don't know if it's because he took the title very seriously or just because that's what terminally ill people tend to do).

In the fourth paragraph of the first Chapter (Our Picture of the Universe) I think Stephen Hawking is saying he thinks the Earth is, or could be, the center of the Universe.
He writes:

"Ptolemy’s model provided a reasonably accurate system for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky. But in order to predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an assumption that the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times.  And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times!  Ptolemy recognized this flaw, but nevertheless his model was generally, although not universally, accepted."

Ptolemy’s model by the way, was geocentric (Earth was the center, not the sun).  Remember you answered yes, that you've seen the moon on nights when it looked much bigger and note that Stephen Hawking has never heard of or seen that, as he uses it as the reason why Ptolemy's Earth centered Universe doesn't make sense.  It's also the only reason he uses.

Here's the preceding paragraph so you have full context (it can be skipped).  I'll walk through the reasoning right after.

“Aristotle thought the earth was stationary and that the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars moved in circular orbits about the earth. He believed this because he felt, for mystical reasons, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that circular motion was the most perfect. This idea was elaborated by Ptolemy in the second century A.D. into a complete cosmological model. The earth stood at the center, surrounded by eight spheres that carried the moon, the sun, the stars, and the five planets known at the time, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The planets themselves moved on smaller circles attached to their respective spheres in order to account for their rather complicated observed paths in the sky. The outermost sphere carried the so-called fixed stars, which always stay in the same positions relative to each other but which rotate together across the sky. What lay beyond the last sphere was never made very clear, but it certainly was not part of mankind’s observable universe.

Ptolemy’s model provided a reasonably accurate system for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky. But in order to predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an assumption that the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times. And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times!  Ptolemy recognized this flaw, but nevertheless his model was generally, although not universally, accepted."

If you don't see it at all and it sounds stupid to you, you may very well be right, and I may very well learn the slightly disappointing reason why I always think everyone else is crazy.  But here's how I see it anyway:

1. Ptolemy’s model provided a reasonably accurate system for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky.

2. But in order to predict these positions correctly [that required] ...

3.  ...that the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times

4.  And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times!

5.  Ptolemy recognized this flaw...

Why does Stephen Hawking put an exclamation mark at the end of #4?  And why does he refer to the moon needing to sometimes appear twice as big as a "flaw"?

A.  It could be that he often went from the ramp to the van and back to the ramp, so he never really saw the moon.

B.  Possibly one time a long time ago when he took his glasses off he put someone else's glasses back on by mistake because when he has his off, he doesn't see very well, which is why of course he wears glasses.  From that day forward and for the rest of his life (because he didn't believe a person should buy a second pair of glasses) his whole world was blurry, but never knowing non-blurry he was just happy he could make out the top of stairs, and he never even noticed the moon...

C.  Maybe Stephen Hawking wasn't a very observant person?  Or even more troubling, maybe he is one of the first documented cases of someone with glasses whose handicap resents the sense of sight so much that his own subconscious, as a form of rebellion, alters the images his brain is processing including his ability to see the moon because he also resents his imprisonment in a chair which displays itself in his inability to see anything that doesn't look shackled - like balloons, and the moon....

D.  Or the possibility I lean towards, is that just like you've seen the moon look bigger, and I've seen it look bigger, and my Mom sure as hell has seen it look bigger because she calls me ever damn time to tell me it's beautiful, and even mainstream science agrees it sometimes looks bigger, that most likely Stephen had heard of this (most likely of course he saw it just like everyone else does).

So if basically everyone sees the moon look twice as big sometimes, including Stephen, then why would he use it as the reason he thought Ptolemy was wrong?  It would make no sense because it makes no sense.  All of his lab partners would be coming up to him after they read the first page going "Hey Stephen, great book, loved your take on that time stuff, but umm...hey - do me a favor and look at the sky realy quick.  Do you see like a really big white circle anywhere?  No?...".

If he wanted to just say Ptolemy was wrong he would have said anything else, including that what Ptolemy didn't know was that the moon looking bigger was just an illusion, as modern science later learned.

No, instead he writes like he's confident no on in the world could ever think a bigger moon wasn't the silliest thing they ever heard.  It would be like writing "Newton's biggest problem with his gravity theory was it didn't explain why people kept floating away and no one can stick to the ground!"

Some reasons why he wouldn't just come out and say it ...  First, the people he loved, or at least those with power of attorney, would have wheeled him into a locked facility before he could say "Beautiful Mind".   Then of course there's his career.  Also, some people feel like certain things need to be kept hidden in such a way that only those ready to find it will.  Something about being responsible, letting others kind of self-select when they are ready and able for more (If that seems dumb, because you think why would finding something out be hard, then please,  don't read anything I write again, I just make things up and post whatever sounds the weirdest).

And that's how you know Stephen Hawking was not sold on the whole Sun model.  Sorry, I know I'm using only reason and that it's not well respected, but the guys dead so it's all I got this time.  I'm open to any other explanation that makes more sense (to me).

Totally unrelated question: anyone think Stephen Hawking wasn't his real name and that he created that name to represent his two greatest passions - His Love of owls, especially hawks, and of course his guilty obsession with the great writer Stephen King?  I'm just saying...probably for some it's a lot more plausible than the other thing I was saying.  At least go for one of 'em....

That was wordy, I am wordy, sorry. 

Thanks,
Crazy 8's (or Bette Davis Eyes, or me, or you, or us, or not, or)

Thanks again.  Nick.