Tenth Post - Tribute to Socrates I

At the tenth and one hundredth post, I would like to extol the two great philosophical concepts advocated by the greatest doctore of them all.

Before I start talking about Socrates's most controversial and second most important assertion, it is required to comment on where and from whom these ideas originated. Socrates never personally took to script the lectures and lessons he gave to the Athenian people. This has led multiple to people, no one I believe has a functioning cortical lobe, to think that Socrates did not exist. Now there is enough in the question of who or what is "Socrates" in the Platonic works, what thoughts belong to the historical man we remember as Socrates, if there absolutely was one, what is Plato's censorship and what is distinctly Plato for another blog, fifty publications and ten annoying books for me to read, review and send emails around that start with the endearment "Dear Jerk-in-a-Box". Frankly if you truly feel Socrates is not historically real there is an insurmountable amount of intellectual opinion that thinks you are wrong, historical records, not to mention plays written about him in his time period, not by Plato, and multiple people besides Plato describe how he influenced them and how important he was to them. Yeah, I just love how much everyone's imaginary friend affects me too, I talk about it all the time...

I am not saying that means you are wrong, I just do not think your opinion is the more plausible option, or remotely translatable to common sense. I personally think and feel that Plato's writings originally show a very different attitude toward compensation, violence, general human relations and basic sense of humor than the middle works do, and not in the 'Oh, now I feel I was incorrect/think differently.' way. It seems far more like what a student would do: start out writing as a mouthpiece of their professor, and then grow, mature and theorize for themselves. As far as I am concerned, the differences between the philosophy of the man in Crito and the man in Republic convinces me that one of these characters was the historical Socrates that Plato was writing for, the other was Plato.

Obviously I have read enough to say this with some meaning, but I do not claim definitive, absolute proof and understanding. That being acknowledged, to anyone who thinks I am not qualified to make an assertion about the authenticity of a historical Socrates, I simply want to say that it takes very little time and training to notice that whoever is writing Crito has a much different personality, perspective, temperament, a very different agenda than who is writing Ion, has a much different agenda from who is writing Symposium, has a much different agenda from who is writing the Republic. Over these three "types" of works (assuming you can split the works into Plato's Early, Transitional and Middle Dialogues, not including Late Dialogues because they include him refuting a lot of his philosophy) there does seem to exist a main philosophical point that might always trend back towards Socratic thought in the fullest sense, but how much each type of work replicates the didactic system of Socrates without alteration or censorship clearly demonstrates that as time advanced so did Plato's own personal contribution, since the two main principles of Socratic thought were either diluted or abandoned.

That having been said, and all naysayers and annoying critics put to rest, let us go to the second most important concept of Socratic thought: the abandonment of the theory of compensation.

Compensation is the foundational piece to the social, economic, cultural and religious constructions of the human race. Why you ask? How much more simplistic can your thinking be when you say 'For every two dollars I give to you, you give me something back of worth equal to two dollars.' and be done with the discussion? Every single basic construct of everything we have in our social lives is based on compensation. And if you do not believe me, count how many times you and your friends, in daily conversation, say things like: 'She really deserves that job. She studied so hard.'; 'He's earned some time with me. I mean, he's been so patient and understanding.'; 'They were so good, I just know they are in a better place. They are owed it.'; 'I am glad they are making policy. They have really earned that position.', and the like. It is the core of the average philosophy of the human race: somehow there is an invisible "Earn-O-Meter" in the universe that when you rack up so many "points" in this imaginary video game you are allowed to have accessories and attend to various other "levels" of the video game. Yes, I genuinely assess that the average human being cannot conceive of the universe outside of a 'video game style' concept because a universe where all the presence of creation is simply being and doing its best to interact effectively with the least resistance of energy and other creation, I have to believe that concept is a strain and the dispensation of the philosophical precepts is far too difficult. It took a matter of fifteen seconds of thinking, which is WAY too much for the average person...

Frankly, I have not been convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the average human being can even get to the associative realization that this is their life. I have not seen demonstration in the positive character of the human race to acknowledge that the least challenged and meaningful parts of human society are even noticed. I have a feeling that if an alien landed on Earth and met with the most average, middle-run person, that alien would walk away from the human race assuming we have always been materialistic, selfish, racist, uneducated, unenlightened, disconcerted, and bound by petulant, pathetic and ultimately pitiless things such as money, country and religion. Frankly, I would be willing to believe the average half-wit truly believes there has "always" been "money", "country" and "religion" just as they know it.

Does it matter, eh...I am not convinced one way or another. I am not sure Socrates and I am embarking on the path to improving the human person in the best sense. Could we be - possibly. I have to be disheartened though when every major critic since Hegel has asked humanity to examine itself, this is still in the 'Never gonna happen' column. How many works of Nietzsche, Emmerich, Foucault, Schopenhauer, Camus, Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, Sartre, Beckett and Brecht is it going to take? Evidence can demonstrate to a logical human being that humanity is less than perfect from looking out the front door into a suburban neighborhood. You do not have to look far for our faults - they are rather illuminated.

However, I will say this much: mixed with those faults is a sense of pride, caution, decency, honor, self, inquisitiveness and adventurous spirit that melds into the many contradictions that is 'human', however you do or do not define that (no biological-based comments please, I took Genetics, Evolution and Molecular Biology...I get it). To be this is so very meaningful. Maybe I am the only one who still breaks down during Little Wonders, but there is so much more meaning to be human, to existing itself, than having money, which statue you like best and how many bread lines you have tended to. It is the essential question of whether "Other" is what you learn to exist freely in, or whether you become addicted to it as the morphine of your self-egotistical orgy deteriorates into an average human life. Human is the moment one realizes that the most honest statement is "I am." and that there is more to that realization than we can ever understand; we should indulge and love every ounce of it, we should be all we can be as creation. If that is a belief, then sorry everyone who bet I am just a perturbed little prick with no beliefs. I do not see it as a belief, I see it as a natural motion of existence. Call my assessment whatever you will; even Crito thought it was a ridiculous fantasy twenty five hundred years ago. Yet I promise you this: this concept has been the sacrifice of the greatest of creatures from the human race, and to be counted among them for me is an honor. Belief, voodoo magic, honest assessment or blissful fantasy, at least this was a thought process worthy of a human.

When I hear the words 'Then we must never do harm' I cannot help but feel that which is truest about me acknowledge and acquiesce. A shiver runs through me with every reading; the good kind, the kind that is strangely calming, a feeling of home the moment you walk into a place. Then again I also start thinking about the Vulcan salute, so maybe I am a little too steeped in it all to the point where I have a grandiose image that cannot live up to reality. I am not raving that the universe is going to end if people do not listen to me (since that has never happened EVER), I just want to acknowledge it is a very romantic, grandiose, idealized view. A view worthy of the best of the human race...

Perhaps compensation is a very integral part of human thought, but many strides have been made in the destruction of the thought processes that labeled some people with the name tag "Property". Two hundred pyramids and three major civilizations (if not more) later you have to admit that this thought was integral, once. Maybe one day we can administrate that everyone has everything they need, where acts are done for the sake of righteous and just cause, where the greatest compliment to existence is knowing you are, and in being we naturally become loving, helpful and giving. I know it can happen because I do everything I can to make it so in my own life and interactions. I am repaid by being a piece of this universe, of interacting with the many things I am proud to call family.

Idealized view: very much so. Possibly too fantastical: maybe. May get me killed: it's happened before. Yet again, I posit that a protective, collective republic of democratically minded people centered around a constitutional social contract was a fantastical impossibility to the people of 1630s Bavaria. Now we exist as though this is as how we have always existed. One day we could live in a world just as "fantasical", without money, without exchange, where justice is blind, government is fair, just, universal and administered by a concerned and aware populace, where education is free and extensive, where health is a priority, not a commodity, where kindness is the media, honesty the metaphor and justice the currency.

Now was Socrates imaging a StarFleet universe...yeah, I doubt it. However, he did imagine a world where honesty could live. He imagined a world where we were not so cowardly that we need to extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current "enemy". He imagined a world were people were honest about why they felt the way they did, that people admitted that sometimes they just wanted to be cruel, and carnivorous, and callous and contemptible. Why? Socrates wanted us to admit these things so we could understand they are honestly a part of us, just as all creation is. There is no magic switch that makes you start acting ethically. The act of honest requires understanding and respect. That is all Socrates asks: be completely honest.

When we really break compensation down, how many lies precipitate it? When have you done enough to earn someone's affection? What is the true worth of a dollar? Who gets to set that standard and why is it so? Why are eighty hours of one person's life worth practically nothing, an hour of another person's time worth $80,000 USD? What makes one faith tradition better? How many times are people going to present evidence they are the better without any true measure of truth or spiritual response of individual people? Can evidence ever be shown in this? What makes someone worthy? Why do some have more money then they comprehend to utilize, and others have none? Social theory is constructed about a world of lies that beguiles and bewilders the truth: there is no measure that distinguishes one human or one thought, that "victory" is most often the product of violence and trickery.

To be honest is to expose and realize a very selfish and self-obsessed component to what we are as humans. If we are ever to learn to make the universe better, we, as a society, need to universally demand the end of dishonest, disheartening activity. Socrates asked that we at least try. The rest has always been up to us...

How to Not Think Like an American

“You do not mean that. What you mean is, not like you.”

“You think I’m an ignorant savage, and you’ve been so many places; I guess it must be so. But still I cannot see, if the savage one is me.”

“How can there be so much you don’t know? You don’t know…”

You think you own whatever land you land on. The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim.

But I know every rock, and tree, and creature, has a life, has a spirit, has a name.

You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you.

But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger, you’ll learn things you never knew!

You never knew…

Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon?

Or ask the grinning bobcat why he grins?

Can you sing with all the voices of the mountain?

Can you paint with all the colors of the wind? Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

Come run the hidden pine trails of the forest; come taste the sun sweet berries of the Earth.

Come roll in all the riches all around you, and for once, never wonder what they’re worth.

The rainstorm and the river are my brothers, the herring and the otter are my friends.

And we are all connected to each other, in a circle, in a hoop, that never ends.

How high does a sycamore grow? If you cut it down,

Then you’ll never know…

And you’ll never…

Hear the wolf cry to the blue corn moon.

Or whether we are white or copper skin.

We need to sing with all the voices of the mountain;

We need to paint with all the colors of the wind.

You can own all the Earth and still,

All you’ll own is Earth until,

You can paint with all the colors

Of the wind…