Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

F4, Compare these two quotes. The first, if nothing else, is attributed to Tesla and the second comes from his writings
"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla

To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without.
"A Machine to End War", 1937
Are they in opposition? No. Tesla was concerned with the observable; the effects of laws which govern our universe. Plato said roughly the same as did Simone and they make sense to me. It is proven through efforts to “know thyself.” All this talk of will and choice on a large scale is foolishness. We are governed by earthly and cosmic influences. This is the observable. The great Ways suggest Man has the potential to fall under conscious influences as well from beyond the observable and become conscious beings. Tesla wasn’t concerned with this. He was concerned with laws and in this way he was a genius. Towards the end of his life he was influenced by Buddhism which refers to more than just the observable.

The brains of all animal life are receivers and instruments of interpretation. Tesla would agree but you insist on arguing.

I’ve already said and even quoted Prof Needleman on what philosophy is. I’ve learned by experience that academic philosophy is parroting. Understanding is secondary. The Socratic dialogue with the help of an experienced facilitator allows a group to experience a universal through the sharing of personal opinions and experiencing their limitations. It leads to understanding. One doesn’t have to be an academic to share in Socratic dialogue and the exploration of philosophic questions.

-1- dropped out of the conversation so ER and I began elaborating on question the topic spawned. No harm, no foul.

Academics would teach chess by teaching the laws of the game and what the great masters said about the game. Once a person escapes from the rigidity of the academics they learn how to play the game

Academic philosophy teaches what to know to satisfy academic opinions and Socratic philosophy teaches how to know and experience what philosophy attracts us to: how to play the game.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eaglerising:
I was in agreement about Tesla in respect to consciousness and the mind, based upon what you quoted him saying. I didn't realize it was your interpretation of his quote.
There seems to be some confusion here. Nick quoted something that is credited to Tesla but a) I have found no credible source that attributes this quote to him, b) the quote says nothing about consciousness, and c) I have offered no interpretation of Tesla, just straight quotes with references to where he said them.
Nick may have called his misrepresentation of Tesla an “interpretation”, but if he did so it must have been via a PM since there is no record of it here.
I have always had difficulty with people presening a quote as being original when it isn't. If someone modifies or alters another quote, they need to take OWNERSHIP OF IT by expressing it is their interpretation.
I am in agreement and that is why I have called him out on this with regard to the alleged Tesla quote for the second time. But it is not an isolated occurrence, and unless one known the authors or works in question one might not even suspect that this is occurring.

Although we may differ with regard to interpretation, there are standards that should be honored. A plausible interpretation should shed light on the work as a whole and make connections between the parts and how they function within the whole. A plausible interpretation must not ignore things an author says because they undermine one’s interpretation.

If, for example, Nick says:
… heart knowledge is the center of [...] Socratic philosophy …
Then he must provide evidence in support of that claim. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Socratic sources - Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon, or Aristotle say anything about “heart knowledge”. What is paradigmatic of Socratic knowledge is the ability to give a reasoned account. ‘X’ is not considered to be true or likely to be true or considered to be an acceptable opinion as to what might be true because one “feels” it to be true. In fact, Plato’s Socrates is critical of the poets because they cannot give a reasoned account of what they say. He dismisses their claim that they are the conduit of the gods.

Nick_A:
F4, Compare these two quotes. The first, if nothing else, is attributed to Tesla …
You are attempting to gloss over the fact that it appears that it is wrongly attributed to Tesla. If you cannot provide evidence that he actually said it then you should not be attributing it to him.
Plato said roughly the same as did Simone …
Whether or not he did, and I think it quite clear that he did not unless, of course, one practices selective blindness and ignores the whole in favor of isolated parts taken out of context, the shift away from Tesla serves only to confuse matters.
The great Ways suggest Man has the potential to fall under conscious influences as well from beyond the observable and become conscious beings.
And here, in a paragraph that begins with a discussion of Tesla, you insert your own beliefs as if you were explicating both Tesla and Plato.
Tesla wasn’t concerned with this.
So why bring it up? Earlier you claimed that Tesla said the brain received consciousness. Rather than admit you were wrong (and you already knew that since we had this discussion on another thread) you bring in all kinds of things including consciousness as if it were all part of the same and then say that Tesla wasn’t concerned with this. It sure does look like you are trying to obfuscate.
The brains of all animal life are receivers and instruments of interpretation. Tesla would agree but you insist on arguing.
The issue is whether he was making a claim about receiving consciousness.
I’ve learned by experience that academic philosophy is parroting.


And what is the extent of that experience? Anyone with truly representative experience of academic philosophy knows that there is a wide variety of approaches, methodologies, and goals, depending on instructors and schools, and that the ability to construct, defend, and analyze arguments is a necessary skill that has nothing to do with parroting.
The Socratic dialogue with the help of an experienced facilitator allows a group to experience a universal through the sharing of personal opinions and experiencing their limitations.
What is that universal that is experienced? If one reads on a superficial level it might be something like that there are eternal unchanging truths Plato calls Forms, but that is not an experience, it is information. If one reads at a deeper level one begins to experience the aporetic nature of philosophy.
Academics would teach chess by teaching the laws of the game and what the great masters said about the game.
Some do, some don’t. That depends on the teacher. As with any subject or activity, there are different approaches and methodologies. You really do not have either the knowledge or experience to make such a definitive statement, do you?
Once a person escapes from the rigidity of the academics they learn how to play the game
There may be notable exceptions, but most grandmasters have extensive education in chess and were taught the laws, as well as what the great masters said and did.

Academic philosophy teaches what to know to satisfy academic opinions and Socratic philosophy teaches how to know and experience what philosophy attracts us to: how to play the game.

It may seem that way to someone with little or no experience and knowledge, but what occurs in academic philosophy is quite a bit more complicated than this caricature, and Socratic philosophy does not teach us “how to know”. It can make us aware of what we do and do not know. But some mistake Plato’s mythology for Socratic philosophy. They ignore the aporetic center. The dialogues almost always lead to to a recognition that whatever else was said it remains the case that we do not know what the philosopher desires to know. Socratic philosophy is not about the transcendence of human human wisdom. To believe that humans possess what he called divine wisdom is ignorance of ignorance.
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Eaglerising »

Arguing only creates conflict. Fooloso4 and Nick_A are both expressing some points that need to be examined rather than debated. That is my opinion. Right and wrong pertains to knowledge, not understanding or wisdom.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eaglerising:
Arguing only creates conflict. Fooloso4 and Nick_A are both expressing some points that need to be examined rather than debated.
Argument is one of the way philosophers have always examined issues. Socrates’ masterful skill and ability to win arguments is something he was well known for in his lifetime, and, thanks to Plato, something we have a picture of.

What good might come of this? While it is not likely that Nick is going to change his mind, there is still a possibility that he will come to question some of his own assumptions and begin to examine the texts more closely and even solicit the help of some of our finest teachers who have written on these matters. Far more likely, others reading these exchanges might ask themselves who is right and take a closer look for themselves.

Dissimulation:

I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. This is due in part to your misuse of quotations. It is not clear to me just what it is that you are objecting to when, for example, you refer to my claim about Plato’s Republic. It appears as if you think I am denying the importance of critical reason, but what I said in a previous post is:
One thing that both [Socratic and academic philosophy] demand is rigorous standards for reason, argument, and critical judgment.


I will give only one more example. You say:
you misrepresented (profoundly) the work of 3 of the 4 philosophers mentioned now including Plato, Einstein and Socrates. candidly I must ask, did you read the philosophers mentioned ? if so how did you draw those conclusions ? The language restrictions you mentioned are not relevant given the 'productivity of language'
But I have not said anything at all about Einstein and there are no works of Socrates. As to Plato, yes, I have read him, extensively over a period of about forty-five years. I have also read and continue to read many of the leading commentaries. I will not go into my academic credentials here but let’s just say that I am qualified to discuss Plato. As to my profound misrepresentation of his work, if you wish for me to respond, you need to be more specific and use quotations properly so that I know exactly what you are referring to that I allegedly said.

I do not recall saying anything about language restrictions. I did say that words tend to accrue and change meaning over time, and so, when the author I referred to used the term ‘spiritual’ it should not automatically be assumed that the term as he used it carries all the subsequent meanings it has gained over time. This is not a restriction on language, it is simply what occurs and with a bit of linguistic archaeology older senses of terms can be uncovered. This is an essential hermeneutic tool.

I would also be glad to respond to any other issue you have raised in response to me as long as I know it is actually in response to something I said and what it is that I said that you have an issue with.
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Eaglerising »

The to understanding my post lies in the word "argument," which is often misunderstood. The definition of argument today is:
1) An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
2) A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Both of these are about what's perceived "right" and "wrong." It's about knowledge as opposed to understanding. The only thing understood is the winner won at the expense of the loser. Thus, it is a contest.

The word "argument" in the days o Plato and Socrates meant 1) To draw out or expose a perception or belief so the reality of can be seen. 2) shed light upon it.

The objective is understanding, No contest or conflict is involved. No one loses.

A statement is made. The recever doesn't assume he or she understands that statement. Thus, questions are asked until both are in agreement as to what that statement or definition means. The next step is for both parties to examine what the source or foundation of that statement. Again, questions are used to obtain that. In a way it's like pealing an onion, one layer at a time, until there is only LIGHT. The end result is the seeing and understanding of that light comes from within each participant as opposed to something external.

The key to all this is to mutually discover the hidden reason for the existence of a statement or belief. And, exposing it for what it is. Thus, the phase, "the truth will set you free."
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

F4
You are attempting to gloss over the fact that it appears that it is wrongly attributed to Tesla. If you cannot provide evidence that he actually said it then you should not be attributing it to him.
The quote is portrayed on many Tesla sites and Wiki for example says it is attributed to Tesla. I don’t know why but do know it doesn’t conflict with Tesla’s beliefs. What is the fuss about?
Plato said roughly the same as did Simone …

Whether or not he did, and I think it quite clear that he did not unless, of course, one practices selective blindness and ignores the whole in favor of isolated parts taken out of context, the shift away from Tesla serves only to confuse matters.
You deny Plato spoke of remembrance but remembrance is not created by a person. It is remembered.
So why bring it up? Earlier you claimed that Tesla said the brain received consciousness. Rather than admit you were wrong (and you already knew that since we had this discussion on another thread) you bring in all kinds of things including consciousness as if it were all part of the same and then say that Tesla wasn’t concerned with this. It sure does look like you are trying to obfuscate.
Of course he did. We don’t create concepts like justice for example. We receive the conscious essence of justice and interpret it.
And what is the extent of that experience? Anyone with truly representative experience of academic philosophy knows that there is a wide variety of approaches, methodologies, and goals, depending on instructors and schools, and that the ability to construct, defend, and analyze arguments is a necessary skill that has nothing to do with parroting…………………………….

It may seem that way to someone with little or no experience and knowledge, but what occurs in academic philosophy is quite a bit more complicated than this caricature, and Socratic philosophy does not teach us “how to know”. It can make us aware of what we do and do not know. But some mistake Plato’s mythology for Socratic philosophy. They ignore the aporetic center. The dialogues almost always lead to to a recognition that whatever else was said it remains the case that we do not know what the philosopher desires to know. Socratic philosophy is not about the transcendence of human human wisdom. To believe that humans possess what he called divine wisdom is ignorance of ignorance.

From an Amazon blurb on Jacob Needleman’s book: “The Heart of Philosophy”
Philosophy as it is frequently taught in classrooms bears little relation to the impassioned and immensely practical search for self-knowledge conducted by not only its ancient avatars but also by men and woman who seek after truth today. In The Heart of the Philosophy, Jacob Needleman provides a “user’s guide” for those who would take philosophy seriously enough to understand its life-transforming qualities.
You have forgotten the purpose of philosophy as normally happens with academics. It isn’t about arguing and the love of self importance but rather the love of experienced wisdom. It is an awakening influence There is nothing attractive about stuffy people with their noses in the air acting as if they know what they are talking about. They are attracted to the heart of philosophy that is furthered through reason, conscious contemplation, and sincere efforts to “know thyself” or have the experience of oneself.

Academic philosophy with the goal of approval from academics closes the mind and heart while Socratic philosophy serves to open the mind and heart. It is as simple as that.

-- Updated Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:15 pm to add the following --

Eaglerising
The word "argument" in the days o Plato and Socrates meant 1) To draw out or expose a perception or belief so the reality of can be seen. 2) shed light upon it.

The objective is understanding, No contest or conflict is involved. No one loses.
Well put. At one time and even now with some an argument contains a question. it admits ignorance. For some reason the concept has devolved into a nasty defense of ignorance. Why is a good question.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eaglerising:

Yes, I understand your use of the term ‘argument’. The philosophical use and practice of the term was the same in Socrates time as it is today, but is not quite as you describe it. First, as the Platonic dialogues make clear, contest and conflict are often a part of it. Second, Socrates stands as the idealized exemplar of what philosophical argument should be. This is, as the Second Letter says, Socrates made young and beautiful. Third, even though understanding is an objective, the dialogues do not typically end in agreement.

Although Socrates makes a distinction between the philosopher and the sophist he often uses rhetorical and sophistic devices, and did not hesitate to dish out a bit of abuse when appropriate. The difference is a matter of intent. The sophist aims to persuade and win the argument without regard to the truth, to make the weaker argument stronger. Socrates intent is to pursue the truth. The pursuit of truth, however, is not the possession of truth. Much of the dialogues deal with Socrates showing others that they did not know what they believed they knew.

Nick_A:
The quote is portrayed on many Tesla sites and Wiki for example says it is attributed to Tesla. I don’t know why but do know it doesn’t conflict with Tesla’s beliefs. What is the fuss about?
It is not uncommon for statements to be wrongly attributed. If you cannot identify where he said it that raises the question of whether he did say it. You seem to be unconcerned with the problem of misrepresentation, but I am pretty sure that is statements were wrongly attributed to Weil you would be concerned. It is, in my opinion, an academic standard that is worth upholding.
You deny Plato spoke of remembrance but remembrance is not created by a person. It is remembered.
I do not deny it. We have spoken about this extensively. Don’t you remember? You believe that you remember things from when you were dead but you cannot remember that we have gone through this more than once? You brush aside the insurmountable logical problems, many of which Plato draws our attention to,in order to protect your belief.
Of course he did. We don’t create concepts like justice for example. We receive the conscious essence of justice and interpret it.
Where did Tesla say this or anything like this? Which is it, did he say that we receive the conscious essence of justice and interpret it or, as you said before, he not concerned with this?
From an Amazon blurb on Jacob Needleman’s book: “The Heart of Philosophy” …
Based on your claim about what you learned from experience about academic philosophy I asked about your experience. You respond by quoting a blurb from a book by someone else. In other words, you have no personal experience but merely pretend to speak from experience.

Note that Needleman says:
Philosophy as it is frequently taught in classrooms …
Saying that it is frequently taught this way is quite different than your blanket claims about academic philosophy. Needleman is, after all, an academic, as was Plato. The fact of the matter is that I agree with the criticism of how philosophy is frequently taught, but the truth is that there is a great deal of variety among professional philosophers. As anyone who has pursued philosophy within the university knows it is a matter of picking the school and teachers who are the best fit for your needs and interests. To stand outside and condemn the whole is misguided posturing. I am sure that Needleman would agree, although he might say it in a more polite manner.
You have forgotten the purpose of philosophy as normally happens with academics.
And what is your basis for saying that? The quote on the Needleman book ends by mentioning philosophies “life-transforming qualities”. My posts # 5 and 7 are about philosophy as transformative practice. My first post #3 was about two prominent academics who stress the importance of philosophy as a way of life.
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Eaglerising »

Maybe the following will assist you in seeing that any change in a person’s perception or belief has to come from within the individual as opposed to someone or something externally. There is a reason for that. Whether you realize it or not, you created our own perception or reality. And, because it’s your creation, you are “responsible” for it. The “law of the land” in the US recognizes that responsibility and holds you accountable for it.

Nothing is life is duplicated. You are unique, one of a kind. You are the ONLY ONE who has access to what and how you created your reality. That is why you are held RESPONSIBLE for it. Therefore, you are the only one who can alter or change it.
Unfortunately, ignorance causes people to think another can assume their responsibility and change their reality. Likewise, ignorance causes people to think or believe they can change another or their creation.

Socrates was probably the first to see and understood the relationship between creation and responsibility. He was the first to devote his life to helping people see what was contained within them and exposing it to THE LIGHT.

Socrates realized that neither he nor who he was helping REALLY knew what and how their perception or belief was created. Thus, he didn’t ASSUME he did. So, he approached it from the unknown by asking none-threating, open-ended questions. “Defensiveness” allowed him to realize when the person he was helping felt as if they were being attacked or challenged. Thus, his questions weren't threating. The reason being, the material for his question came from the person he was helping as opposed to him.

-- Updated April 2nd, 2017, 6:08 am to add the following --

The key is to only use what is contained with the individual’s mind that you are helping as opposed to introducing something foreign. The only way you can obtain it is by asking them questions.

-- Updated April 2nd, 2017, 6:17 am to add the following --

In other words, it is a DISCOVERY PROCESS for everyone involved in which everyone benefits from it.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eaglerising:
Maybe the following will assist you in seeing that any change in a person’s perception or belief has to come from within the individual as opposed to someone or something externally.
While it is true that no one can force you to change, it is also true that we can be influenced by other people to change both our perceptions and beliefs. In the Meno Socrates is called a “torpedo fish” because he can stun his his interlocutor and render him intellectually paralyzed. It is at this moment of uncertainty, when one becomes aware that his beliefs and opinions do not rest on solid ground that a transformation can begin to occur.

This was my own experience when I encountered Plato as a freshman in an introduction to philosophy course. I doubt that simply reading Plato, however, would have been sufficient. It was a discussion class and allowed me not only the opportunity to express and defend my opinions but to examine them, to question myself with regard to what it is I believed and why. I became a devoted Platonist, convinced that the answer must be with the Forms. Some years later there was another fundamental shift. I read a book that completely changed the way I thought about the Platonic Forms. I came to reject Platonism and in the process discovered Plato.
Socrates was probably the first to see and understood the relationship between creation and responsibility. He was the first to devote his life to helping people see what was contained within them and exposing it to THE LIGHT.
Socrates called himself a midwife. He helped others give birth to their ideas. Many of these ideas were “wind eggs”, but some still clung to them as their own and were unwilling to give them up. He also called himself a physician of the soul. He administered the necessary 'pharmakon', which is both a medicine and a poison. In a way that is analogous to cancer treatment, in order to cure the patient of his illness it was sometimes necessary for Socrates to kill something within them.
So, he approached it from the unknown by asking none-threating, open-ended questions.
This is simply not true. Take a look at how he talked to Thrasymachus in the Republic or his confrontational competition with Protagoras. Socrates was not above shaming or bullying those he spoke to when he thought it necessary. There is talk in the dialogues of those who avoided Socrates because they were threatened by him. ‘Elenchus' or refutation is essential to the Socratic philosophy.
“Defensiveness” allowed him to realize when the person he was helping felt as if they were being attacked or challenged. Thus, his questions weren't threating.
Socrates knew the character of those he spoke with, and so he knew when to be harsh and when to be gentle. We find examples in both Plato and Xenophon. As a physician does not use the same medicine for every patient, Socrates did not engage in elenchus with every interlocutor.

Socrates method was not always successful. It is not clear, for example, if Socrates had any beneficial influence on Euthyphro. But even though the conversation was private the reader is privy to what was said, and so, even if Euthyphro learned nothing the reader might. Our conversations here is public, and so, even if we are unable to pursuit the person we in discussion with of anything the reader might still benefit.
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Eaglerising »

My description of Socrates was later in his life when he learned by trial and error how best to help people. Like anyone in the beginning he made mistakes and learned from those mistakes. It isn't wise to judge his entire life on a few discourses. Likewise, we do not have a record made by him of his learning process. Most of what is known about him has come from others and their perception of him. Unless one had an unbiased, photographic memory, it would be impossible to accurately write about his dialogues, word or word.

True, Socrates wasn't able to help everyone. It's impossible to help someone who doesn't want it. You're illustrated that in your own example. You choose to examine your opinions and beliefs. You didn't have to do that. No one forced your to do it. You did it on your own. This is why I said the source of all change comes from within the individual as opposed to externally.

Socrates used a "discovery" process. Through trial and error he discovered how to help people that sincerely desired help. In the process, he discovered what was contained within them. Likewise, the person receiving the help discovered what was contained with them. In turn, seeing it for what it is, produced a change within them. Just as it did with you.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

Matthew 22: 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
I had quoted the beginning of Jacob Needleman’s book: “The Heart of Philosophy” earlier
“Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.”

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….
If Jesus and Jacob Needleman are right we have two lives. We have a physical life and a spiritual life. You don’t seem to acknowledge their difference. Philosophy for you seems to be about living a better life in Cesar’s domain. There is nothing wrong with this. Why not be cooperative and strive for the good life in Caesar’s domain? You quoted in #3
From the publisher’s description of Hadot’s book:


This book presents a history of spiritual exercises from Socrates to early Christianity, an account of their decline in modern philosophy, and a discussion of the different conceptions of philosophy that have accompanied the trajectory and fate of the theory and practice of spiritual exercises. Hadot's book demonstrates the extent to which philosophy has been, and still is, above all else a way of seeing and of being in the world.
wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd ... 80338.html


From the publisher’s description of Nehamas’ book:

For much of its history, philosophy was not merely a theoretical discipline but a way of life, an "art of living." This practical aspect of philosophy has been much less dominant in modernity than it was in ancient Greece and Rome, when philosophers of all stripes kept returning to Socrates as a model for living. The idea of philosophy as an art of living has survived in the works of such major modern authors as Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault. Each of these writers has used philosophical discussion as a means of establishing what a person is and how a worthwhile life is to be lived. In this wide-ranging, brilliantly written account, Alexander Nehamas provides an incisive reevaluation of Socrates' place in the Western philosophical tradition and shows the importance of Socrates for Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault.
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520224902
The difference between what Jacob Needleman wrote and what you quoted is our essential difference. You reject what it means to give to God and the necessity of nourishing our higher parts through the questions raised by Socratic philosophy.

The only thing we can give to God is our attention. It is the only thing we have. Giving of our attention means awakening to reality. The process of awakening is what we give. Academic philosophy serves largely to kill the inner impulse to awaken in favor of living the good life so in many cases serves as a spirit killer in the young.
'The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any ... is any bread, but that, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry.” ~ Simone Weil
This is what academic philosophy often does in the young lacking the inner strength to oppose its influence.. Academic pressures force the young to suppress this normal need philosophy serves and limits philosophy to serving Caesar’s domain. All our differences surround this basic difference. For you philosophy serves the world and for me real philosophy worthy of the name stimulates awakening to reality. I surely will not change and neither will you.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Eaglerising »

Nick_A, I am a curious fellow. I am curious to know why you use and rely upon quotes, both original and modified? Please tell me if you know. And, let me know if you don't know.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eaglerising:
My description of Socrates was later in his life when he learned by trial and error how best to help people.
Which dialogues do you see as representing Socrates earlier and later in life? Note that the dramatic chronology of the dialogues is not the same as the chronology is which the dialogues were written.
Likewise, we do not have a record made by him of his learning process.
In that case your claim would have no standing. It would just be an assumption that his treatment of his interlocutors changed as he learned to help people. But we do have Plato’s dramatic chronology, and, after all, when we talk about Socrates we are generally talking about Plato’s Socrates.The dialogues give us enough information to get a pretty accurate picture of his age at the time the dramatic dialogues are supposed to have taken place.
True, Socrates wasn't able to help everyone. It's impossible to help someone who doesn't want it. You're illustrated that in your own example. You choose to examine your opinions and beliefs. You didn't have to do that. No one forced your to do it. You did it on your own. This is why I said the source of all change comes from within the individual as opposed to externally.
But my own changes may never have happened without the external influences. There are some who come here because they are interested in philosophical self-examination. There are others who come here because they want a platform to expound their beliefs. I come here in part to protect the former from the misinformation of the latter.
Through trial and error he discovered how to help people that sincerely desired help.


Keeping to the medical analogy, the way in which he helped depended on what the interlocutor’s illness was. Not everyone he helped desired help. In some of the dialogues he draws in people who clearly do not desire his help, and some like Euthyphro think they are in a position to help Socrates (who of course plays along). It was, however, not simply those he engaged in conversation with that he sought to help. He sought to undermine the influence of the poets and sophists, that is, the leading opinion makers.

Nick, when you claimed that Tesla’s mechanistic man is a receiver of consciousness from a mechanistic universe, I called you on it. I asked for evidence from what Tesla said and an explanation of how and why what is mechanical should be interpreted as being conscious. When you said that “heart knowledge” is the center of Socratic philosophy I called you on it. I asked for evidence from the dialogues and an explanation of how and why the prominence he gives to reason should be interpreted as prominence to “feelings”. When you made claims about academic philosophy based on your own experience I call you on it. And when the only thing you provided in return is something you read in a book blurb I called you on it. You followed up each of these with more unsubstantiated claims. I am not going to continue this perpetual evasive game you mistake for philosophy. If you wish to proclaim your beliefs then you should do so without attempting to legitimize them by misrepresenting philosophers and scientists or by repeating and expanding your uninformed condemnation of academic philosophy.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

Eaglerising wrote:Nick_A, I am a curious fellow. I am curious to know why you use and rely upon quotes, both original and modified? Please tell me if you know. And, let me know if you don't know.
My ideas are in a minority. It is easier for me to quote someone else and pass the buck leaving a trail for a person sensing some value. Simone Weil is kown as Plato's spiritual child. If I quote Simone on something I agree with rather than include Plato except when necessary it limits negativity. Simone can be cursed out and it doesn't matter. She was used to it and I am used to it. However including others with a more extensive reputation can just spread negativity which hurts others. Leaving a trail is not negative. for example if a person is interested in what I quoted from "The heart of Philosophy" they can read the whole intro in Amazon. If not, then it doesn't matter. If a person only views philosophy through secular eyes denying its function as nourishment for our higher parts, then only limits philosophy to secularism such as political philosophy making academic philosophy happier.

Quotes are basic ideas referring to basic concepts. If they are denied on a basic level there is no use in going further
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Academic Philosophy vs Socratic Philosophy

Post by Eaglerising »

Fooloso4, you chose to do everything you did. Your whole life has been a series of choices. You choose what interested you and what didn't. Everything in life has the potential of influencing you. You chose what did and don't. Thus, you are responsible for what you chose and how you responded to it. Is there someone other than you responsible for your life?

Are you saying Socrates didn't change or learn anything throughout his life?

You see yourself as being right and I am wrong. I see that we disagree. You want to prove your are right. I am not interested in proving anything or involved in an argument. I have pointed out the difference between ancient or Socratic philosophy and academic philosophy several different ways. What you do with it is up to you.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021