Pride vs Humility

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

Didn't he die by forced poisoning? Maybe someone decided to use the scientific method to test his hypothesis.

Socrates thought his soul was immortal, (something Descarte tried to prove) he also thought that any damage he did to other's, damaged his soul; so he took the poison voluntarily, so as not to force other's to damage their soul's.

Maybe you can use the scientific method to prove him wrong; not the soul, that's impossible, but damaging other's for peronal gain is in the scientific realm, perhaps you can explain PTSD in a way that doesn't validate his premise... 

[Peterkin]

Quote

Socrates explains to his friends that a true philosopher should look forward to death. The purpose of the philosophical life is to free the soul from the needs of the body. Since the moment of death is the final separation of soul and body, a philosopher should see it as the realization of his aim. Unlike the body, the soul is immortal, so it will survive death. http://www.tripartite-soul-theory.com/socrates/soul-and-body.html

This was a departure from the generally - and officially - held belief of his times https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#1, thus: 

Quote

Powerful elements amongst older generation of Athenians, however, tended to find cause to view Socrates' teachings to be corrupting or sacrilegious.

During that period, Greek thought and literature were undergoing a shift in the conceptualization and elaboration of human nature, from a simplistic mythical narrative toward a far more nuanced and complex philosophy.

Though sophisticated science was practiced in hydraulic, metallurgy and armaments, the scientific method as applied to the humanities was still a very long way in the future.

[mistermack]

I'd like to know how Socrates justified his belief in a soul. But suppose it was just different times. Gods and souls didn't get questioned as much as they should have. It seems illogical now, for him to do all of that thinking about his soul, without first trying to establish for a fact whether he had one or not. 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'd like to know how Socrates justified his belief in a soul. But suppose it was just different times. Gods and souls didn't get questioned as much as they should have. It seems illogical now, for him to do all of that thinking about his soul, without first trying to establish for a fact whether he had one or not. 

There's a few thing's wrong with this (in no particular order):

1/ You seem to stop reading/thinking when you read the trigger word God/soul, not a very scientific approach to reason.

2/ As @Peterkin points out, Socrates didn't write any of his teachings down, so it's impossible to know what he meant by immortal soul: Either he thought it was literally true or it was a metaphor to enrich his pupil's understanding; I know which one I'd bet on.

3/ Why does it matter if God or the soul exists or not, in the light of the basic premise; any damage you do to society, you do to yourself.

I'd like to know why you think you're more enlightened, by a scientist you don't understand, rather than a priest you don't understand?

Edited September 3, 2022 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

in the light of the basic premise; any damage you do to society, you do to yourself.

What rubbish. Where do you get that stuff, or is it just invented? Stalin did a bit of damage in his time. It never hurt him. 

I don't know why people bang on about Plato and Socrates so much. They may have been very bright, but they didn't have the weapons that modern people have, ie, facts.

If they were about today, they would be worth listening to. But they were working with their eyes shut, their ears plugged, and their hands tied behind their backs compared to people today. That's why Darwin and Richard Dawkins are worth my attention, whereas Socrates and Plato are just oddities, to be read for fun. You won't learn anything useful, but it might pass the time. 

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What rubbish. Where do you get that stuff, or is it just invented? Stalin did a bit of damage in his time. It never hurt him. 

Stalin hid himself away, when Hitler invaded, thinking his general's would 'out him' for the coward he knew himself to be; no-one is better placed to punish than oneself, besides how can you possibly know that "It never hurt him"; I know it's a bit of a stretch for you, because you're "Mr Jack"...

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't know why people bang on about Plato and Socrates so much. They may have been very bright, but they didn't have the weapons that modern people have, ie, facts.

This is what I mean, you assume modern thinking is superior because we have smartphones, which is ironic because 'we' have no idea how it work's... 🤔🧐😉🙄 

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If they were about today, they would be worth listening to. But they were working with their eyes shut, their ears plugged, and their hands tied behind their backs compared to people today. That's why Darwin and Richard Dawkins are worth my attention, whereas Socrates and Plato are just oddities, to be read for fun. You won't learn anything useful, but it might pass the time. 

Hmmm, a little humilty wouldn't go amiss, if you're aiming to learn something...

I'll ask again, "Can you explain PTSD in a way that doesn't validate his premise?"

Edited September 3, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't know why people bang on about Plato and Socrates so much. They may have been very bright, but they didn't have the weapons that modern people have, ie, facts.

Perhaps because they dispensed more useful wisdom without 'ie, facts' * than a great many modern people who have far wider access to a greater number of facts, yet keep denying those facts, keep telling lies, keep spreading noxious propaganda and inciting violence. 

Also, of course, * facts are not weapons, they're merely the building blocks of knowledge. All people, at all times, have been in possession of facts that pertained to their world and used those facts, and the resulting knowledge, to operate in their world. If the ancient Greeks used different metaphors from the ones used by modern Americans, they did, nevertheless, describe the workings of the human psyche far more accurately.

35 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's why Darwin and Richard Dawkins are worth my attention, whereas Socrates and Plato are just oddities, to be read for fun. You won't learn anything useful, but it might pass the time. 

And yet, here you are, beating up on the people you don't appreciate, rather than promulgating the wisdom of those you do.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

facts are not weapons, they're merely the building blocks of knowledge.

Indeed, but some people need to be taught how to build a wall; before they understand the value of a brick... 😉

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but some people need to be taught how to build a wall; before they understand the value of a brick..

Not just some people. Everyone needs to learn before they can understand, and understand something before they can do it well.

[mistermack]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Perhaps because they dispensed more useful wisdom without 'ie, facts' * than a great many modern people

Like what? Useful in what way?  When I need an eye operation, I don't go to a philosopher who bangs on about wisdom, I go to someone who has the facts at his fingertips. Confucius he say "how does an eye work? Fucked if I know! " 

[Peterkin]

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Useful in what way?

As previously mentioned, in understanding psychology, ethics, social organization, relationships, all that stuff ophthalmologists don't do as well. If you're not interested in model trains, ornithology, cartography, antiques or philosophy, you'd probably be happier not discussing those subjects. Attempting to transpose them into different realms, or to fathom why someone else may respect the pioneers of those fields, may well prove frustrating. 

Also, when I need an eye operation, I look for someone with stead hands, as well as facts.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

When I need an eye operation, I don't go to a philosopher who bangs on about wisdom, I go to someone who has the facts at his fingertips. Confucius he say "how does an eye work? Fucked if I know! " 

You don't see the irony do you? (You're soo not suited to philosophy) 

A physicist knows exactly how a car work's, from the engine to the tyre's he/she has all the latest facts, but he/she doesn't understand how to repair it; if it stops working, you need a mechanic.

But you're neither, and yet your happy to jump in and, inexpertly, prize the splinter from my eye; didn't Jesus say something similar???

[mistermack]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're soo not suited to philosophy

Thank you. Much appreciated.

And you really ARE suited.

You're welcome.    😊

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Thank you. Much appreciated.

And you really ARE suited.

You're welcome.    😊

I'm just asking question's, that you can't or won't answer; kinda textbook... 🙄

[mistermack]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm just asking question's, that you can't or won't answer; kinda textbook... 🙄

You're questions rarely make any sense. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

You're questions rarely make any sense. 

I'm not responsible for your understanding, I can only point the way... 

[Michael McMahon]

On 9/4/2022 at 2:55 PM, dimreepr said:

I'm not responsible for your understanding, I can only point the way... 

 

Deep down I I might not believe in humility at all! It's just that I'm not good enough at anything and have no choice but to present myself in a humble way!

[Michael McMahon]

On 9/4/2022 at 1:43 PM, dimreepr said:

A physicist knows exactly how a car work's, from the engine to the tyre's he/she has all the latest facts, but he/she doesn't understand how to repair it; if it stops working, you need a mechanic.

 

Apathy as a form of humility might only work if people are deferential to less apathetic people. Otherwise the most apathetic people would become the leaders. This becomes relevant if we're criticising communist styles of humility. An authority figure often isn't very humble but still isn't condescending.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Michael McMahon

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

 

Apathy as a form of humility might only work if people are deferential to less apathetic people. Otherwise the most apathetic people would become the leaders. This becomes relevant if we're criticising communist styles of humility. An authority figure often isn't very humble but still isn't condescending.

I'm not sure how this relates to the post you're quoting?

Besides, apathy within our sphere of influence is, I think, just another word for contentment; and within our societal norm's, is desirable. 

Apathy, when one can positively affect an unjust situation, is deplorable.

So apathy is yet another yin-yang of humanity.

Every true authority figure would be humble, by definition (because a true leader, leads by example); authority figure does not equal authoritarian. 

[Michael McMahon]

On 1/27/2023 at 12:19 PM, dimreepr said:

So apathy is yet another yin-yang of humanity.

 

I was diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum but I can be very extroverted only when I'm too angry. If ask "how are you" then I'm being sarcastic! If I give someone on the street the thumbs up then I've something violent in my mind!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C6jgBRRHPw4

Clive Cobb Jail Scene Rush Hour

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

 

I was diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum but I can be very extroverted only when I'm too angry. If ask "how are you" then I'm being sarcastic! If I give someone on the street the thumbs up then I've something violent in my mind!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C6jgBRRHPw4

Clive Cobb Jail Scene Rush Hour

What's your point?

I've worked with a lot of autistic people, on all the points of the spectrum and they're all capable of loving another person/people, but not all of them know how to show it to that person/people.

As it relates to humility, I'm not sure they recognise its benifit or the problem of pride; it's only really a problem, when the rest of us are jealous of such-and-such because of their imagined successful/better/happier life. 

  

[Michael McMahon]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's your point?

 

A really evil person can never be humble by expressing such intense hatred of others. As such the concept of humility is a great deterrent to immoral and evil people. Moreover humility is closely connected to forgiveness even without reference to Christianity. A humble person simply doesn't view their own pain as being worse than the pain felt by others. After all everyone will eventually be confronted with the pain of death. This helps to forgive people who've inflicted pain on others by reminding people that criminals aren't as bad as the nazis. However the trouble with humility is that it's a virtue that can be used by both moral and amoral people. Ethical people who espouse humility might run the risk of false humility in concealing rather than removing pride. Yet amoral people are also confronted with the risk of false humility in being humble about ethics rather than to be ethical about humility. In other words certain amoral people might appear humble to even worse evil people by not expressing pride in the fundamental need to be ethical. Yet this defeats the purpose of humility when it's still meant to be expressed in a friendly rather than aggressive way. Hence if we took false humility seriously then it could manifest in multiple contradictory ways. Good people are still meant to be very proud of helping others without being self-righteous about it and without being inordinately proud of other areas of their life. Being proud of doing good might be a lesser evil for the need to defend against actual evil people.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Michael McMahon

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

A really evil person can never be humble by expressing such intense hatred of others.

What makes you think that "a really evil person" can exist?

16 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

In other words certain amoral people might appear humble to even worse evil people by not expressing pride in the fundamental need to be ethical.

The army of the righteously indignat think they're being ethical, by expressing thier moral supremacy.

They're not evil, they've just been taught... wrong... 

[Intoscience]

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

They're not evil, they've just been taught... wrong..

Or born different. For most people some things cannot be learned, no matter how much is taught or how hard they try.  

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Or born different. For most people some things cannot be learned, no matter how much is taught or how hard they try.  

So, is a bully born or taught?