That's an interesting thought on the political end of things. When anyone attempts to flower their speeches with large words, does it convey the speech any more so than the person who speaks relatively simple and straightforward?
With any massive audience, a speaker must be careful to avoid faux pas so as to avoid those critical responses you talked about. I don't know necessarily that the political debate is flawed by it, but I find it's very difficult to speak intelligently 100 percent of the time. Certain stations focus in on every little detail and you get a story blown out of proportion with people becoming outraged by a slip of the tongue or a politically incorrect term.
I feel that the system is flawed but not irrevocably broken; people fear the retaliation of speaking truthfully for fear of seeming unintelligent, even though I'm sure most of us would agree that we want to know exactly what the individual candidate believes and intends to act upon without the "dumbing down".
The texts very well may have been edited, but as is the case with most of these writings, we will probably never know. Even the Authorized King James version was translated with rules attached as to what rules it should follow. Just as Cody said about the Color TV, the message can be similar, but never perfect. It would be nice to imagine that these texts were in fact untouched and original, but oh how simple it would be to place a small passage within a text.__I do agree that the similarites are intriguing but does the potential of added content make the texts worth any less?
The new Americanized fast food Christian lives and breathes the fear of a horrible eternity. And with the woman and her giving food, to better her karma, I've taken some classes on Eastern religions, and its not about being good for the reward, you should strive to be good for the sake of goodness, to make yourself whole and finally escape the cycle.
Do we need a reason to be good? I think you're pretty well on the right track when you say that to act towards the good for the sake of avoiding punishment whether in this life or the next isn't necessarily the real good. Obviously without a solid definition of "the good" it becomes hazy, but I think the good is something that should we are meant to strive towards solely for the purpose of bettering our lives and those around us, not out of fear.
I agree with you Joni. By forcing Protagoras to come to an extreme answer, Socrates lets out a wide scale of other possible answers. It's not to say that either approach is wrong, the open or the narrow view, but this method of "if.... then..." is all based on speculation. It doesn't necessarily prove that one party is right or wrong, yet Socrates continues to follow his points with a fervor that seems quite unnecessary.
I would argue that Socrates does indeed contradict himself by his following speech. The beginning of (Socrates and Protagoras) their conversation exactly as Socrates says is his style, with questions and answers, but the next speech seems very ironic. I can't say for sure, but I am someone who likes to control conversations, maybe not so much be the talkative one, but to at least have a hand in its direction. Sometimes it's hard for me to redirect the course of a conversation without more than usual diaglogue. This seems to me, that Socrates likes his questions and answers until in fact he loses his upper hand.
As to the second of the two questions, for philosophy to be at odds with religion seems wrong on so many levels. A philosopher is someone who is wise speaking person, but a philosopher isn't someone with ultimate knowledge. Religious texts carry weight with their followers but it seems absurd to simply accept the texts without first thinking for yourself. Philosophy accepts the ideas of many different people, yet when religion comes into play some people feel the need to step in and demand how things should be. Your goal in philosophy is to express yourself in such a way as to draw others to your side, to help further the conversation of life, not to upset others.
I believe that being a philosopher is more than just being wise, I would argue that it is the ability to put yourself into another's shoes and truly attempt to understand them, no matter the end result. If I find myself to be in the wrong, I change, I adapt, for as the Tao says, "Whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death, whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life."
Socrates seems to be speaking about someone who is spiritual, who has a set of values based outside of organized religion, but based around religious texts. For afterall, language is our tool for expression, a god wouldn't need such crude things and even if the words of a god were to be transcribed into a physical text, would they really carry the true meaning from a being of higher knowledge down to a race of beings who use crude vocal sounds and scribbles to communicate? I think not, because our vocabulary and the definitions of words are all relative based on our individual experiences and points of reference.
Yes, Socrates does mention specifically, religion, but I don't necessarily know if he was going for; the Bible's version of religion, or the new McDonald's Christians. By that I mean, people are choosing the idea of a quick fix-all religion and if it means going to church and paying tithes, then sure, why not. As opposed to what a born again Christian should, metaphorically speaking, be. The idea of someone being born again, is to become new, to truly change your lifestyle to emulate your beliefs to the fullest extent possible.
I see the different religious texts as tools towards a better way of life, not necessarily a doctrine of perfect truth. I believe that Socrates is promoting spirituality, not the abusive form of organized religion popular in the world today.
I see Socrates' statement as meaning, if you give your yourself to a way of thinking without any forethought or restraint, you will undoubtedly be drawn to this new way. This way will consume you and effectively blind you to other thoughts that surround you. Your "soul" being the state of your mind, not necessarily the ethereal smoky image that flies into the light.
I would argue that we as humans are driven by needs and desires. I would say that most of our actions are indeed selfish, whether we judge them to be or not. It's not to say that every action is dictated by necessities, but realistically how many people can truly live whilst not being "tainted"?
I propose, that it is our goal in life to strive to be at this pinnacle, but achieving this level of goodness seems impossible.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Production