How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
- seek_philosophy
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: May 28th, 2019, 10:07 am
How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
Then why Socrates was trying that hard to define justice, wisdom..? If he didn't know the definition, how did he know that such notions exist?
To me, it seems like trying to define undefinable, and I don't even get the motivation for that. Why do we need a word like justice? We have what we have, why to create an imaginary situation/state, and name it? (especially if it's very subjective, as in case of justice) Can anyone bring a proof that such notion exists (this sounds absurd).
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
Noam Chomsky is the current worldwide expert on Linguistics. He is also a philosopher. He has written many books. You may want to go to your local bookstore or online and see what he has written on that.seek_philosophy wrote: ↑May 28th, 2019, 10:16 am In the beginning there were no words, only material and spiritual 'things', then people formed words to communicate (although I don't quite understand how the evolution of the language occurred). If that's the case, then when we have a word defined, it'll be clear for everyone.
Then why Socrates was trying that hard to define justice, wisdom..? If he didn't know the definition, how did he know that such notions exist?
To me, it seems like trying to define undefinable, and I don't even get the motivation for that. Why do we need a word like justice? We have what we have, why to create an imaginary situation/state, and name it? (especially if it's very subjective, as in case of justice) Can anyone bring a proof that such notion exists (this sounds absurd).
Linguistics and language are even more fascinating when you consider that certain ancient languages like Greek are more complex than their modern derivatives. Language has evolved from complex to more simple. This defies intuition.
If the model of human evolution is as described, with monkeys evolving into apes, and apes into hominids, then language must have evolved from simple to complex. But as I said, from about 2000 BCE we observe the opposite.
- Maffei
- Posts: 38
- Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
In that sense, his main goal was not arriving in concepts. The concept was something that would emerge itself from a confrontation of ideas. But in Plato's dialogues you can see that he do it in a very careful way and frequently tests preliminary definitions. He doesn't give us previous guarantees that he will get in a satisfactory definition, so much that in many cases the dialogues end with an unsolved problem.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
The first part is unimportant to discuss here.seek_philosophy wrote: ↑May 28th, 2019, 10:16 am .... when we have a word defined, it'll be clear for everyone.
Definitions - dictionaries - are actually a very late development in philology. There was language - thousands of languages, in fact - long before there was any record of human events; the bulk of human development can only be guessed-at from fragmentary archeological discoveries.
People understood words through having a common experience of the things, concepts, emotions and phenomena to which words refer: yam, rain, tiger, sorrow, back, river, stop, etc. and used them to communicate a very long time before anyone started analyzing language itself.
Because he was thinking about and analyzing and attempting to communicate his conclusions about the elements of social organization.Then why Socrates was trying that hard to define justice, wisdom..?
Everybody has the 'notion' of justice by about age 3. They can't define it until much later, but all thoughtful adolescents do invent their own definition at some point between thirteen and nineteen. Definition comes a very long way behind comprehension, and is only needed for sharing thoughts with other humans who speak the same language.If he didn't know the definition, how did he know that such notions exist?
Everything for which humans have invented words is communicable, definable and translatable.To me, it seems like trying to define undefinable
Now that is a problem.and I don't even get the motivation for that.
Because we all, from about the age of three, have a sense of what that is and we need to communicate our various personal notions of it, just as Socrates did, so that we can create and improve social organizations.Why do we need a word like justice?
What we have didn't happen by magic. People made it. Together, in communicative groups.We have what we have, why to create an imaginary situation/state, and name it?
We have what our ancestors created. If we're content and happy with that, nothing more needs be done. Thing is, thought, not all of us are happy and content, so we have to keep negotiating improvements.
No, and nobody needs to. We all know the concept. A sensation, emotion or concept has no objective material existence the way an object does, but is nevertheless real. Nobody can prove that pain exists: you can only demonstrate its effects on any sensate entity: it's a sensation we all have in common and can recognize by the response of other entities, just as we know it in ourselves. Nobody can prove that logic exists, because it has no material existence, but all intelligent creatures employ it to solve problems, and their methods are so similar that we can recognize exactly what process is taking place even in the mind of a creature very different from ourselves. You can't prove there is such a thing as justice - because there isn't: it's a mere concept - but we all know what's fair and what isn't.[ justice] Can anyone bring a proof that such notion exists.
- Maffei
- Posts: 38
- Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
How do we define that an element is important or not to a discussion? Let's see if we find an answer.Alias wrote: ↑May 29th, 2019, 10:31 pmThe first part is unimportant to discuss here.seek_philosophy wrote: ↑May 28th, 2019, 10:16 am .... when we have a word defined, it'll be clear for everyone.
Well, maybe, the notion of importance, like justice, comes in a certain age. But, if I understood, in earlier age the importance born in us only like a general notion, and in adolescence we invent what is important and what things are or not important.Alias wrote: ↑May 29th, 2019, 10:31 pmEverybody has the 'notion' of justice by about age 3. They can't define it until much later, but all thoughtful adolescents do invent their own definition at some point between thirteen and nineteen. Definition comes a very long way behind comprehension, and is only needed for sharing thoughts with other humans who speak the same language.seek_philosophy wrote: ↑May 28th, 2019, 10:16 am If he didn't know the definition, how did he know that such notions exist?
But why do we have the need to limit what is important?
Very instructive! Is just a personal notion, but simultaneosly worried about improving social organization. So that which is thinked as important to me may be for everyone, because the definition of importance I am using would be better for guiding wisely this social organization called forum. Right? ?
Now let me get back to the initial text and see how it is unimportant, so we can prove how much this definition of importance is real:
If this would be actually unimportant to consider, it can't let any questions that would compromise further discussion. Let's verify if this process is really solved and unproblematic?seek_philosophy wrote: ↑May 28th, 2019, 10:16 am In the beginning there were no words, only material and spiritual 'things', then people formed words to communicate (although I don't quite understand how the evolution of the language occurred). If that's the case, then when we have a word defined, it'll be clear for everyone.
- In this life without words, how much the impressions of someone was different from another?
- Can we just go through this phase and assume that everyone will have the same clear picture when they think of the word correlated?
- So: are things definable? (seems like seek_philosophy have a very legitimate doubt)
- Are there things more definable than others?
- Are there... things? Shouldn't we rely in an ultimate reality as a basis to guarantee the existence of particular things before we give things names?
- How much can we trust that our language is speaking about things? Or are we living in a representational world?
- How can we live in society and do science if we discover too late that our conceptions felt as certain were mistaken?
- How can we get better definitions so we can make a better science and live better?
This philosopher was Socrates
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
The way I decided - without defining 'importance' - was that the first bit is a complete misapprehension of the nature and development of language. Trying to explain where it's wrong would take too long and derail the topic. If you think it is important, by all means discuss it.
No: Justice is always important. If you treat toddlers and small children unfairly, they may be psychologically damaged for life.[Everybody has the 'notion' of justice by about age 3... Definition comes a very long way behind comprehension, and is only needed for sharing thoughts with other humans who speak the same language. ]
Well, maybe, the notion of importance, like justice, comes in a certain age. But, if I understood, in earlier age the importance born in us only like a general notion, and in adolescence we invent what is important and what things are or not important.
But we are incapable of defining such concepts until we learn the necessary verbal skills. Invention doesn't come into it, but we each do have a person apprehension of justice, and sharing those personal perspectives shapes a group's expression of justice.
Because we do not have infinite time, energy and attention to lavish on every task, we prioritize.But why do we have the need to limit what is important?
I didn't use the words in bold. Socrates was a teacher: it was his vocation to help elaborate concepts vital to the polity.Very instructive! Is just a personal notion, but simultaneosly worried about improving social organization.
Not until you are considerably more fluent, please.So that which is thinked as important to me may be for everyone, because the definition of importance I am using would be better for guiding wisely this social organization called forum. Right? ?
But you've done a wonderful job with the concept of "importance".
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
Such concepts are justice which are abstractions, need constant revision and definitions. He knew all the definitions; he was simply refining and challenging them.seek_philosophy wrote: ↑May 28th, 2019, 10:16 am
Then why Socrates was trying that hard to define justice, wisdom..? If he didn't know the definition, how did he know that such notions exist?
You last question as in the title is odd. You might as well ask how do you know - its the same answer.
- Maffei
- Posts: 38
- Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
- Maffei
- Posts: 38
- Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 8:27 amSo you're saying that Socrates previously "knew" but in fact he was a deceiver because he kept the secret that the definitions were invented? Or that he was so proud with this wisdom sensation in a point to deceive himself of his knowledge?
This as a possible interpretation, but you would get a lot a trouble in proving it since is not the most accepted. The accounts of his life history showed a really humble man that indeed acted and spoke as someone that "only know that know nothing". To say strongly that this sentence was a great lie would be presuming psychological aspects of Socrates. Isn't that a little bit risky?
But philosophy showed less interest in being his lie detector than in using his method. Haven't you never reached a conclusion through a dialogue in a point of not knowing if the conclusion was constructed in that very moment or was waiting to be discovered (preexistent in a way)? This happens frequently while I'm dialoguing.
The hard thing is finding someone to do it in a monological culture. What was merely a hypothesis in Plato (the existence of an ultimate absolute being, the Idea of ideas) is used as already clear. This has to do with the overwhelming safety in the conclusions of the interlocutor. It reveals that he keeps a premise that his arguments are indeed linked to an ultimate truth.
And that's exactly what Socrated was trying to avoid!!
- Maffei
- Posts: 38
- Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
So you're saying that Socrates previously "knew" but in fact he was a deceiver because he kept the secret that the definitions were invented? Or that he was so proud with this wisdom sensation in a point to deceive himself of his knowledge?
This as a possible interpretation, but you would get a lot a trouble in proving it since is not the most accepted. The accounts of his life history showed a really humble man that indeed acted and spoke as someone that "only know that know nothing". To say strongly that this sentence was a great lie would be presuming psychological aspects of Socrates. Isn't that a little bit risky?
But philosophy showed less interest in being his lie detector than in using his method. Haven't you never reached a conclusion through a dialogue in a point of not knowing if the conclusion was constructed in that very moment or was waiting to be discovered (preexistent in a way)? This happens frequently while I'm dialoguing.
The hard thing is finding someone to do it in a monological culture. What was merely a hypothesis in Plato (the existence of an ultimate absolute being, the Idea of ideas) is used as already clear. This has to do with the overwhelming safety in the conclusions of the interlocutor. It reveals that he keeps a premise that his arguments are indeed linked to an ultimate truth.
And that's exactly what Socrated was trying to avoid!!
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
According to his theory of learning. we all know these things, but just need to bring them out and unpack them.Maffei wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 9:19 am Ooops I did an editing mistake. Please consider this one
So you're saying that Socrates previously "knew" but in fact he was a deceiver because he kept the secret that the definitions were invented? Or that he was so proud with this wisdom sensation in a point to deceive himself of his knowledge?
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.
This as a possible interpretation, but you would get a lot a trouble in proving it since is not the most accepted. The accounts of his life history showed a really humble man that indeed acted and spoke as someone that "only know that know nothing". To say strongly that this sentence was a great lie would be presuming psychological aspects of Socrates. Isn't that a little bit risky?
But philosophy showed less interest in being his lie detector than in using his method. Haven't you never reached a conclusion through a dialogue in a point of not knowing if the conclusion was constructed in that very moment or was waiting to be discovered (preexistent in a way)? This happens frequently while I'm dialoguing.
The hard thing is finding someone to do it in a monological culture. What was merely a hypothesis in Plato (the existence of an ultimate absolute being, the Idea of ideas) is used as already clear. This has to do with the overwhelming safety in the conclusions of the interlocutor. It reveals that he keeps a premise that his arguments are indeed linked to an ultimate truth.
And that's exactly what Socrated was trying to avoid!!
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
The way Socrates did this is now called "leading the witness" in court. It is an objectionable violation of proper trial procedure.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 1:22 pmAccording to his theory of learning. we all know these things, but just need to bring them out and unpack them.Maffei wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 9:19 am Ooops I did an editing mistake. Please consider this one
So you're saying that Socrates previously "knew" but in fact he was a deceiver because he kept the secret that the definitions were invented? Or that he was so proud with this wisdom sensation in a point to deceive himself of his knowledge?
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.
This as a possible interpretation, but you would get a lot a trouble in proving it since is not the most accepted. The accounts of his life history showed a really humble man that indeed acted and spoke as someone that "only know that know nothing". To say strongly that this sentence was a great lie would be presuming psychological aspects of Socrates. Isn't that a little bit risky?
But philosophy showed less interest in being his lie detector than in using his method. Haven't you never reached a conclusion through a dialogue in a point of not knowing if the conclusion was constructed in that very moment or was waiting to be discovered (preexistent in a way)? This happens frequently while I'm dialoguing.
The hard thing is finding someone to do it in a monological culture. What was merely a hypothesis in Plato (the existence of an ultimate absolute being, the Idea of ideas) is used as already clear. This has to do with the overwhelming safety in the conclusions of the interlocutor. It reveals that he keeps a premise that his arguments are indeed linked to an ultimate truth.
And that's exactly what Socrated was trying to avoid!!
It is a rhetorical device which the Sophists were good at.
Lo and behold! Socrates was a Sophist !!
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
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'."h_k_s wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 1:30 pmThe way Socrates did this is now called "leading the witness" in court. It is an objectionable violation of proper trial procedure.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 1:22 pm
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.
It is a rhetorical device which the Sophists were good at.
Lo and behold! Socrates was a Sophist !!
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: How did Socrates know about the notion of justice?
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.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023