How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?

[Sculptor1]

But as Rumpole used to say "Never ask the witness a question, if you don't already know what they are going to say. Ol'd Darlin'."

Exactly right. That's because a court trial is really a play with scripts and lines, and everyone on both sides already knows all the data, information, facts, and law, except for the jurors.

The jurors know nothing as of yet.

The jurors are supposed to keep an open mind and then decide unanimously.

But there are rules for this play which both sides, prosecution and defense, or plaintiff and respondent, must follow.

I think you forget that it is the duty of the defence to take the prosecution off script, to tell its own version, and to demonstrate the weakness of their script, and vice versa.
Rumpole's remark is a warning to avoid laying the opposition's traps yourself.
But what is or is not just, is measured against a preconceived idea of what it acceptable behaviour.

Why this is interesting is that whilst one might want to see justice as an objective concept, that to which it applies with fidelity changes over time, across culture and with the particularities of opinions of judges and jurors.

[h_k_s]

Exactly right. That's because a court trial is really a play with scripts and lines, and everyone on both sides already knows all the data, information, facts, and law, except for the jurors.

The jurors know nothing as of yet.

The jurors are supposed to keep an open mind and then decide unanimously.

But there are rules for this play which both sides, prosecution and defense, or plaintiff and respondent, must follow.

I think you forget that it is the duty of the defence to take the prosecution off script, to tell its own version, and to demonstrate the weakness of their script, and vice versa.
Rumpole's remark is a warning to avoid laying the opposition's traps yourself.
But what is or is not just, is measured against a preconceived idea of what it acceptable behaviour.

Why this is interesting is that whilst one might want to see justice as an objective concept, that to which it applies with fidelity changes over time, across culture and with the particularities of opinions of judges and jurors.

If you watched the OJ Simpson criminal trial, you saw that both sides were all bull. Marcia Clark was a drama queen. And Johnny Cochrane was the devil himself dressed up like a Sophist.

[Maffei]

According to his theory of learning. we all know these things, but just need to bring them out and unpack them.
Through anamnesis, you will recall from his interrogation of the slave boy in in Meno, and through the concept of the Theory of Forms such notions are preconfigured according to Platonic theory.

The way Socrates did this is now called "leading the witness" in court. It is an objectionable violation of proper trial procedure.

It is a rhetorical device which the Sophists were good at.

Lo and behold! Socrates was a Sophist !!

The boy in Meno could give birth to mathematical principles because they are presumably universal. He knew this not-invented principles as much as any human being, including Socrates. What is convincing the boy is his affinity to the light of the eternal forms, and Socrates acts as a mere facilitator. Now this seems to me more legitimate to put in question: how can he and Plato (and the subsequent tradition) can argument in favour of the transcendental hypothesis for learning.

Sophists otherwise will try to convince you of particular conceptions as if they were universal. No, Socrates is not yet a sophist as you say.

But ok if its an irony and you're trying to put Socrates as a kind of God's advocate maliciously trying to persuade the people to adopt more appropriate ideas. Imagine what would happen to Socrates in the internet today, where saying what we want is the highest thing to preserve, whether if is an obscene lie or not. I guess he would burn in the inquisition of our sucess-based morals

[h_k_s]

The way Socrates did this is now called "leading the witness" in court. It is an objectionable violation of proper trial procedure.

It is a rhetorical device which the Sophists were good at.

Lo and behold! Socrates was a Sophist !!

The boy in Meno could give birth to mathematical principles because they are presumably universal. He knew this not-invented principles as much as any human being, including Socrates. What is convincing the boy is his affinity to the light of the eternal forms, and Socrates acts as a mere facilitator. Now this seems to me more legitimate to put in question: how can he and Plato (and the subsequent tradition) can argument in favour of the transcendental hypothesis for learning.

Sophists otherwise will try to convince you of particular conceptions as if they were universal. No, Socrates is not yet a sophist as you say.

But ok if its an irony and you're trying to put Socrates as a kind of God's advocate maliciously trying to persuade the people to adopt more appropriate ideas. Imagine what would happen to Socrates in the internet today, where saying what we want is the highest thing to preserve, whether if is an obscene lie or not. I guess he would burn in the inquisition of our sucess-based morals

Socrates was leading the witness. And a Sophist.

Q.E.D.

[Sculptor1]

I think you forget that it is the duty of the defence to take the prosecution off script, to tell its own version, and to demonstrate the weakness of their script, and vice versa.
Rumpole's remark is a warning to avoid laying the opposition's traps yourself.
But what is or is not just, is measured against a preconceived idea of what it acceptable behaviour.

Why this is interesting is that whilst one might want to see justice as an objective concept, that to which it applies with fidelity changes over time, across culture and with the particularities of opinions of judges and jurors.

If you watched the OJ Simpson criminal trial, you saw that both sides were all bull. Marcia Clark was a drama queen. And Johnny Cochrane was the devil himself dressed up like a Sophist.

I would not want to base any considerations on justice, legality or jurisprudence on THAT travesty of a trial.

[Sculptor1]

Socrates was leading the witness. And a Sophist.

Q.E.D.

Sophist was a dirty word, that does not apply to Socrates.

[h_k_s]

Socrates was leading the witness. And a Sophist.

Q.E.D.

Sophist was a dirty word, that does not apply to Socrates.

Only moral relativism could excuse Socrates. It does not. Ergo he was a Sophist. And he used Sophistry to teach his students.

And there was something wrong with his mind. Just because he did not believe in the Greek Gods of Athens, there was no justification for him to spread his own heresy to the young men of Athens.

[Sculptor1]

Sophist was a dirty word, that does not apply to Socrates.

Only moral relativism could excuse Socrates. It does not. Ergo he was a Sophist. And he used Sophistry to teach his students.

And there was something wrong with his mind. Just because he did not believe in the Greek Gods of Athens, there was no justification for him to spread his own heresy to the young men of Athens.

Nope.
You ideas are a hopeless recipe for stagnation.
You might as well direct your absurd views at Jesus, Gandhi, and the Buddha - in fact the entire cannon of philosophy from time immemorial.

[h_k_s]

Only moral relativism could excuse Socrates. It does not. Ergo he was a Sophist. And he used Sophistry to teach his students.

And there was something wrong with his mind. Just because he did not believe in the Greek Gods of Athens, there was no justification for him to spread his own heresy to the young men of Athens.

Nope.
You ideas are a hopeless recipe for stagnation.
You might as well direct your absurd views at Jesus, Gandhi, and the Buddha - in fact the entire cannon of philosophy from time immemorial.

Jesus was not a bad philosopher. His social philosophy was restated by Immanuel Kant. His business philosophy was restated by Adam Smith.

Gandhi was not a bad political leader. His nonviolent resistance political philosophy was restated by Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I would not put Gandhi ahead of John Locke however.

The Buddha was an indulgent prince of India who became enlightened and taught enlightenment. The Quakers and Mennonites and Mormons all follow many of his teachings, as did Jesus to a certain extent as well.

What do these three have to do with Socrates ?? I think you are off topic. In court and in debate this is called "nonresponsive" at this point. Sometimes you have very good points Sculptor1 . But not this time. Sorry. No offense.

[h_k_s]

Socrates and Aristotle were both induced to flee Athens.

Aristotle was smart and left. He was not Athenian anyway. He was from the court of Kings Philip and Alexander of Macedon.

Socrates was stupid and stayed. Hemlock root is not good for you though.

[Sculptor1]

Nope.
You ideas are a hopeless recipe for stagnation.
You might as well direct your absurd views at Jesus, Gandhi, and the Buddha - in fact the entire cannon of philosophy from time immemorial.

Jesus was not a bad philosopher. His social philosophy was restated by Immanuel Kant. His business philosophy was restated by Adam Smith.

Clearly you are either lacking in basic knowlege or you have having a laugh.

Gandhi was not a bad political leader. His nonviolent resistance political philosophy was restated by Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I would not put Gandhi ahead of John Locke however.

See above

The Buddha was an indulgent prince of India who became enlightened and taught enlightenment. The Quakers and Mennonites and Mormons all follow many of his teachings, as did Jesus to a certain extent as well.

See above

What do these three have to do with Socrates ?? I think you are off topic.

I think we are well and done here.

[h_k_s]

Jesus was not a bad philosopher. His social philosophy was restated by Immanuel Kant. His business philosophy was restated by Adam Smith.

Clearly you are either lacking in basic knowlege or you have having a laugh.

Gandhi was not a bad political leader. His nonviolent resistance political philosophy was restated by Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I would not put Gandhi ahead of John Locke however.

See above

The Buddha was an indulgent prince of India who became enlightened and taught enlightenment. The Quakers and Mennonites and Mormons all follow many of his teachings, as did Jesus to a certain extent as well.

See above

What do these three have to do with Socrates ?? I think you are off topic.

I think we are well and done here.

We were already well and done before your last two comments. No offense.

[labypan]

To me, it seems like trying to define undefinable

Everything for which humans have invented words is communicable, definable and translatable.

I think some notions aren't definable, I might be wrong somewhere, but don't see it yet.

Let's say (or imagine) when blood starts to flow faster in the veins, heart starts to throb slower, and the temperature of right hemisphere drops, people have a particular feeling or emotion. Since all people (or almost all) have the need to communicate, there should be a way to convey those emotions, so they attributed names to those emotions.

So brabudada is the name for the above mentioned feeling. How then one can define it, other than stating biological effects that it has? Or the circumstances in which that feeling is evoked? (for example you feel it when you get undeservedly punished, in case of justice). And although it's similar in all people, it's not identical, it's a feelings and depends on biology, so the circumstances also will not be exactly identical for all people.

I hope we'll not need to define the word 'define', but stating biological state/effects, or circumstances where a feeling is provoked doesn't seem a definition to me.

[Alias]

[Alias - Everything for which humans have invented words is communicable, definable and translatable]

Let's say (or imagine) when blood starts to flow faster in the veins, heart starts to throb slower,

I don't believe those two things can happen at the same time.

.... people have a particular feeling or emotion.

What you described above is not a possible emotion but an impossible physical state.

Since all people (or almost all) have the need to communicate, there should be a way to convey those emotions, so they attributed names to those emotions.

Yes. And?

So brabudada is the name for the above mentioned feeling.

In what language? The definition is what you just just described.

How then one can define it, other than stating biological effects that it has? Or the circumstances in which that feeling is evoked?

All of the above. And? What's the problem?

(for example you feel it when you get undeservedly punished, in case of justice). And although it's similar in all people, it's not identical, it's a feelings and depends on biology, so the circumstances also will not be exactly identical for all people.

You don't need something to be exactly identical in order to be identifiable. No two giraffes or martinis or automobiles are exactly identical, and yet we can put a definition of each in a dictionary, that can be recognized by everyone who has ever seen an example of those things.
Language isn't that persnickety: we're quite capable of sharing broad concepts and generalizations.