Among Socrates' perceived transgressions (in Dr. Wilson's eyes), he was:
1. An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid;
2. Irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind;
3. A chatterbox (talk over action is valued);
4. Psychologically naive - with statements like "nobody does wrong willingly", Wilson tears him apart;
5. Felt that pain didn't matter - if you were good, though wrong/harm was done to you, the real harm is in the sinner or the wrongdoer;
6. Anti-political - he felt that few if any are smart enough to run a government properly, but could he do it? Could anyone? If not, why have gov't in the first place?
7. Parochial - there was little that Socrates believed could be learned outside of the walls of Athens;
8. Arrogant - when Dr. Wilson says arrogant, apparantly she means ill-mannered and inconsiderate among other things listed in the article;
9. Superstitious - sometimes, philosophers mean that someone who is religious is superstitious, but the way she wrote this passage, she made him sound a bit loony (eccentric if you want to put a good spin on it) for listening to the voice inside his head. Is that voice his conscience or was hearing voices like the math professor in A Beautiful Mind?
10. Rationalist - normally, you wouldn't think there's anything wrong with being rational, but Dr. Wilson finds that Socrates puts such a strong emphasis on being rational that he leaves no room for emotion in solving problems. He is devoid of emotion.
So, your job here is to pick 4 of these criticisms and discuss whether or not you agree or disagree with them. We heard from many of you in class, and here's your chance to refine or air out your ideas.
300 words for your total response to these criticisms, due Friday night, March 25th, by midnight.
Socrates is an amatuer. While the professionalism of Socrates can be argued, I do not believe that his amateurity in philosophy would negate any of his philosophical ideas. Wilson criticizes the idea of Socrates teaching without receiving payment, arguing that if this were to occur now, the education system would be in shambles. However, I do not believe it is a fair point to apply the modern world standard to the past. While money has and always will be important, we rely on way more technology than they did in the past. Socrates genuinely could have been teaching for free for the sake of spreading his ideas; I don’t think that the lack of an exchange would shift anything.
ReplyDeleteSocrates is psychologically naive. I do agree with Wilson’s point in this. I find that Socrates’ belief that “nobody willingly does wrong” is extremely incorrect. People are always doing actions which they know are bad, but they still choose to do it because in many circumstances, it gives them some sort of satisfaction or positive result. For example, cheating. Everybody knows that looking at someone else’s test is morally shunned, but people still do it because it will end up in a better personal result. So Wilson’s argument here is completely valid, that Socrates was extremely ignorant in this regard.
Socrates denies that pain matters. Just as Wilson argues, pain, torture, death, poverty, etc. are all extremely harmful in many ways. Such as developmentally, physically, and emotionally. To believe that, “to the good man no harm can come” is utterly ignorant. Good people are hurt, and bad people are rewarded. This ties into the previous statement of psychological naivety. We oftentimes don’t have control over events that occur to us, or the lives we are born into. Our environment has a huge impact, and to believe that pain is meaningless is just incorrect.
Socrates is arrogant. I don’t really see this as a valid criticism of Socrates. His choice to live the life he led can be seen maybe as some form of arrogance, but I believe that he was just living a life where he denied his desires. I believe that being able to state when you think someone is wrong is also a positive trait, as it leads to a discussion that may change one's mind.
I would say that I agree with a majority, if not all of these points about the flaws of Socrates, but the ones that stuck out to me were that he was irresponsible, psychologically naïve, parochial, and superstitious.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to talk about the claim that Socrates was irresponsible. The simple fact that he has a wife and two children and continues to make the choices he made in his life will only do harm to those around him, as Wilson points out. At this point in time, especially in the misogynistic culture of Athens, Socrates was the only one who could provide anything for his family to help them live, but he chose to live impoverished and not do anything for his family, and then, abandoned them to be executed when he had the opportunity to break out of prison and go back to them. That kind of behavior is truly irresponsible.
Next, his psychological naïveté. Wilson discusses his claim that “ Nobody willing does wrong”, saying that it’s overlooking many people who know what is right, but choose to avoid it; I believe that is true. There are many examples throughout history of people knowing that something is wrong, but choosing to do it anyway. For instance, the famed Chinese warrior Lü Bu was notorious for betraying literally everyone he ever worked for before and during the Three Kingdoms period. According to legend, a noble in Chang’an offered his daughter to Lü Bu as a bride, and then did the same to Lü Bu’s adopted father (and tyrant), Dong Zhuo. When Dong Zhuo took her as his concubine, Lü Bu and other nobles killed him and lit his corpse on fire. Lü Bu absolutely knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway. Al Capone committed numerous crimes in order to enrich himself, well aware that what he was doing was wrong. Socrates does not really know what he’s talking about in this situation.
Continuing on, I want to talk about Wilson’s claim that Socrates is quite bigoted, and it appears to be very true from what Wilson discusses. She claims that he only cared about the male Athenian perspective, and from what I know about Socrates, it seems very true. As far as I’m aware, all of Plato’s dialogues featuring Socrates have him talking to a man in Athens.
Finally, there’s his superstition. He definitely seems to have a bizarre relationship with religion, claiming that he could hear God in his ear when he was going to do something wrong, but multiple different religious perspectives have claimed he had a similar religious viewpoint to them, whether that’s atheists, Christians, or those who believe he conformed with the society’s religion. But every one of those groups had problems with this voice. According to Wilson, “[The divine voice] is the mark not of a philosopher, but a religious mystic - or a crazy person.” Looking at the way he lived his life, it really does seem to be the latter option.
Overall, I agree with a lot of Wilson’s points; this article definitely helped me see this “Founding Father of Philosophy” in a new light.
2. Irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind. This is a statement that I agree with regarding Socrates. He even went as far as to say that his death to the suffering of his family was equivalent and that his family is only a mere extension of himself. He was irresponsible in many ways; For not making a living to provide for his family, and for choosing death to escape prison and again, leaving his family in the dust. It seems as though he never really cared much about his wife and children as he only saw them as an extension of himself anyway, showing his selfishness.
ReplyDelete4. Psychologically naive. This is another statement I agree with about Socrates. He famously declared that “Nobody willingly does wrong,” Which is something that is somewhat true but then goes on to believe that all moral failures can be explained due to ignorance, and if we understood what we were supposed to be doing, then we’d do it. This, to me, seems like he’s saying humans are not supposed to make mistakes because if we knew what to do, then we’d do it. Even if we did know what we were doing, making mistakes is still common and normal, and a way for us to learn and grow.
5. Felt that pain didn’t matter. This statement, I definitely disagree with. Pain does matter and it’s something that everyone feels, even him, as much as he would probably deny it. He says, “To the good man, no harm can come,” Which makes no sense to me. You could be the greatest person in the world, bad things still happen to you because that’s just the way the world works. He thinks the only thing that makes us unhappy is doing wrong, but there’s much more than just making mistakes that make people unhappy.
8. Arrogant. I would say I agree that Socrates is arrogant. In this passage, the writer says “He waddles as he walks, and has an odd way of staring at people. He insists that he knows nothing - and neither does anybody else.” Just from these couple of sentences, I get the impression of who Socrates is and if it were real life, he’d likely be difficult to be around and hard to admire. It seems as though he thinks he is the one with all the knowledge, yet he also says that he knows nothing, making him a very confusing person.
The whole idea of basically putting Socrates down is very interesting to me. Emily Wilson made 10 points, but the 4 that mainly intrigued me were points 2, 4, 8, and 10. The picture saying Socrates Rocks is really funny.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to start with the second point, Socrates is irresponsible. Socrates chose to get married and have kids. Yet he also chose to leave his family behind and chose the city. Though this was an irresponsible decision, he made his choice. I wouldn’t agree or disagree with this statement. I can begin to understand why the choice was made but I also can’t. He started this family but now he’s leaving them to be destitute because he chose a different destiny. He felt that this certain path had to be taken so he took it. He was living his life.
The next point is that Socrates is psychologically naive. I agree with this. I agree because it comes back to the point that if you know what good is you will do good. I don’t think that’s true. People know not to speed in a residential area but still choose to do so anyway. Said person will suffer the consequences. I think this does make him naive.
The 3rd point, point 8 says, Socrates is arrogant. I agree with this argument. Not only is he odd and carries his life differently than others,but he also shows no regard for other people's feelings. Having sympathy for people is a decent thing as a human. Like Wilson says, he’s just rude. I agree 100%.
The final point is that Socrates is a rationalist. He thinks that your mind should be separate from your passion but I think they should work together. He left his family because he was being rational and using his mind. I’m undecided on this argument mainly because he keeps these things separate. I understand but also don’t. It’s complicated!
I agree with points four and seven and disagree with points three and nine. First and foremost, Wilson is correct for stating that Socrates is psychologically naive. Saying “Nobody willingly does wrong” is simply not true. Socrates is completely ignoring our desires and the unconscious mind, along with habits that humans naturally have. By stating this, Socrates is basically saying that humans are almost perfect beings, because we willingly don’t do wrong, and that couldn't be further from the truth. In essence, humans are not perfect, and there are sometimes where people will willingly do something wrong, even if they feel guilt while doing it. Wilson is also right on her seventh point. Socrates was ignorant in the sense that he did not really care to listen to minds that were anywhere outside of Athens. For example, like the Persians or Egyptians who had reached the pinnacle of intelligence at that time, and had many ideas that differed from Socrates, which he could have debated. However, I do not agree with points three and nine. I think that Socrates being a chatter-box is not something to criticize, as he did believe in the constant line of questioning in order to expose flaws in specific arguments. I believe, in certain aspects, that talk should be valued over action as discussions is what leads to new ideas and new arguments. I also do not agree with Wilson’s ninth point, that Socrates is superstitious. I don’t think that Socrates should be criticized or simply labeled crazy for listening to the voices in his head or unconscious mind. Many of the ideas or arguments that Socrates came up with could very well have come from the voices in his head, and he shouldn’t be labeled crazy for thinking by himself or just simply listening to the thoughts in his head.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with the statement that Socrates is irresponsible for leaving his wife and kids behind. Considering the fact that he was sentenced to death, I don’t think he had much of a choice. The article states that he could have attempted to escape with his family and live somewhere else but Socrates accepted his fate and didn’t. He did this because he wanted to set an example by showing that he is willing to obey the laws no matter the consequence. I don’t think that it is fair to call him irresponsible because he accepted his death instead of attempting to escape. I agree with the claim that Socrates is psychologically naive because of his statement "nobody does wrong willingly". Modern psychology can tell us that most people know what is morally right and wrong and some consciously choose to do wrong to cause harm to others. This proves that Socrates was unfamiliar with simple psychological concepts and shows he is indeed psychologically naive. I also agree with the fact that Socrates denies that pain matters. His claim that “to the good man no harm can come” doesn’t make any sense because everyone feels pain and harm no matter how good or bad you are. I even disagree with the modified position that says that good people can be hurt, but that cannot make a fundamental change in the value of their life. I disagree with this because some pain is so extreme, such as the death of a loved one, that it can definitely change the value of even a good person’s life. Finally, I disagree with the argument that Socrates is superstitious because he listens to the voice in his head. I think that the voice in his head could just be his conscience because I listen to the conscience in my head. It also adds that the voice warns him when he is going to do something wrong. Considering that your conscience is an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior, it makes perfect sense that the voice in his head is just his conscience.
ReplyDeleteMax Kepler 3rd Hour
I have to disagree with the statement that Socrates is irresponsible for leaving his wife and kids behind. Considering the fact that he was sentenced to death, I don’t think he had much of a choice. The article states that he could have attempted to escape with his family and live somewhere else but Socrates accepted his fate and didn’t. He did this because he wanted to set an example by showing that he is willing to obey the laws no matter the consequence. I don’t think that it is fair to call him irresponsible because he accepted his death instead of attempting to escape. I agree with the claim that Socrates is psychologically naive because of his statement "nobody does wrong willingly". Modern psychology can tell us that most people know what is morally right and wrong and some consciously choose to do wrong to cause harm to others. This proves that Socrates was unfamiliar with simple psychological concepts and shows he is indeed psychologically naive. I also agree with the fact that Socrates denies that pain matters. His claim that “to the good man no harm can come” doesn’t make any sense because everyone feels pain and harm no matter how good or bad you are. I even disagree with the modified position that says that good people can be hurt, but that cannot make a fundamental change in the value of their life. I disagree with this because some pain is so extreme, such as the death of a loved one, that it can definitely change the value of even a good person’s life. Finally, I disagree with the argument that Socrates is superstitious because he listens to the voice in his head. I think that the voice in his head could just be his conscience because I listen to the conscience in my head. It also adds that the voice warns him when he is going to do something wrong. Considering that your conscience is an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior, it makes perfect sense that the voice in his head is just his conscience.
ReplyDeleteMax Kepler 3rd Hour
I agree with points six, seven and four that Dr. Wilson makes, but I disagree with the eight points that she makes. I agree with her point that Socrates is parochial and that it conflicts with his myth the most. Socrates is remembered as an open minded philosopher who talked with anybody anywhere with the goal to learn something new. This was true, as Wilson says :“He believes that anybody he meets on the streets of athens might have something to teach him” However even if he was willing to learn from slaves he was hostile towards any other idea that was not purely philosophical, such as physics, or for other past and present cultures like the egyptians. This shows that Socrates was actually much more close minded, as he refused new methods of thinking and only wanted conversation with citizens of Athens who had the same way of thinking as him. I also agree with Dr. Wilson’s point that socrates was psychologically naive and his idea that “Nobody willingly does wrong” is wrong. I believe that people are willing to do something they know is wrong if it will benefit them in some way, for example people know stealing is wrong but they still do it since they think it will benefit them. The last point Dr. Wilson makes that I agree with is the sixth point she makes: that Socrates is anti-political. Just because nobody is perfectly fit to run a government does not mean that people should not try. I don't think that there is any perfect government, but people should still try to better different social and political problems. One of the points I do disagree with is her point that Socrates is arrogant. Socrates was ill-mannered and did not care much for how other people felt, but I don't think that this specifically makes him arrogant. He didn’t boast about himself or tried to make himself seem perfect when being rude to others
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMy first disagreement with Socrates and/or my first agreement with Emily Wilsonhas to do with his naive approach to psychological thinking. The idea that “Nobody willingly does wrong” is disproven by the small actions I, and everyone around me does everyday out of motivation or habit as Aristotle believes. When we discussed this in class, the great majority quickly disagreed with examples like “I know cheating is wrong, but it doesn’t stop me”, and “ we know gossip is wrong, but that doesn’t stop people”. The conversation even included things like murder in that everyone (except for those who are severely mentally ill) knows murder is wrong, but will justify it to themselves falsely and still go through with it. Everyone would be grossely misinformed by the belief of socrates if his thinking is true.
Additionally his anti-politcal views are in some ways right, and in others troubling. It is true that no one is perfectly suited for the position to govern, but no one is perfectly suited to really do anything. This does not mean we should give up on democracy, his tolerance to an oligarchy is something I disagree with entirely. Every citizen deserves a vote for who will govern them, restricting the right to vote to simply the educated unfairly restricts the right to a group of people who are disproportionately white, rich, and male which is never ideal as history shows.
His irresponsibility is another great flaw of Socrates that Emily Wilson brings up that I have to agree with. When I think of a philosopher, I think of someone with a great moral compass and therefore someone who lives their life accordion to what is right and wrong. I hardly believe someone who willingly leaves their children and wife penniless and with no opportunities to make money has such a compass. It is incredibly irresponsible to even have children at the old age of seventy (I can’t imagine the average life span being high above seventy at that time) and without a job to begin with, and then to leave them with nothing when they were easily given the option to stay and provide is much worse.
One argument I did agree with pertaining to Socrates, was that he was psychologically ignorant. Socrates stated that “nobody willingly does wrong.” I think this ignores psychological personality disorders such as psychopaths, who acquire dopamine purely through acts of pain and manipulation. Scientifically, psychopaths do the opposite of Socrates' infamous quote, by specifically performing wrong-doings that inflict pain for the purpose of their pleasure. The same goes for sociopaths, who have no real distinction between right and wrong because they lack empathy. Few outliers like this I think prove the criticism that Socrates may have been somewhat psychologically ignorant. A criticism I disagree with is the connotation that Socrates was superstitious. I think someone claiming to hear a “divine voice” should not be framed as crazy. A divine voice is something many have metaphorically, a higher voice to guide them ethnically, morally and philosophically. This narrative is harmful, framing that having an inner conscious voice can be superstitious. Without this voice, Socrates would’ve most likely not had many of the world changing concepts he had. Another criticism I disagree with is that he was too rational, for I believe that we should not be consumed by our emotions. Emotions should be something you simply observe and acknowledge, without letting it overwhelm you. If Socrates let emotion get in the way, his breakthrough ideas might have been stunted due to emotions such as fear, anxiety and uncertainty when analyzing the concepts he did. And lastly I disagree with being arrogant, when devoid of ego its possible to come off arrogant. I don’t think we should use an influential figure’s “likability” as a factor when considering his validity as a figure. Therefore I don’t think many of the criticisms of Socrates are not as credible as facts that are in favor of him. I think the pros definitely outweigh the cons overall.
ReplyDeleteEmelia
2, 5, 7, 8:
ReplyDeleteI agree that Socrates is irresponsible. As my other points will discuss, he is so intent on using head over heart that he ends up using neither. While I can’t say that breaking out of prison would have been a smart or moral decision, from what the article says it seems like he doesn’t have much sympathy for his wife or children, either. He doesn’t make a living and seems to think that the ideal life of a human being consists of thinking really hard about everything to the point of redundancy and to the detriment of everyone around you. He reminds me of Thoreau (who I must admit I don’t hold in high regard either), who goes and lives in a cabin in the woods on his friend’s property for a bit and acts like he’s made some sort of discovery. In his “Why I Went to the Woods” piece, Thoreau explains that he thinks keeping up with/worrying about the news is silly and trivial. I disagree with this because (for me) the news keeps me up to date on issues that affect me and people I care about. Similar to this, Socrates minimizes the suffering of others under the guise that pain doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change our moral principles (?????). I think that’s a pretty irresponsible stance to take, especially when you’re in a position of privilege. Socrates has a very high-and-mighty view of himself, but his perspective is actually very narrow. He prides himself on thinking that everyone is just as intelligent as him, but he doesn’t listen to women and usually doesn't even venture outside of his circle. He never leaves the city of Athens. His arrogance leads him to act strangely- being late because he was thinking, never adhering to social conventions, and insisting that nobody knows anything… It seems that Socrates did what he wanted regardless of how it affected other people. He also seemed to do these things because he thought they proved his wisdom and went in accordance with his other beliefs. And they do fall in line with his beliefs- he seemed to be consistently irresponsible, unsympathetic to pain, narrow-minded, and arrogant. He was selfish, but he probably would have denied that.
Bailey
I agree with several of Emily Wilson's points, the first of which being that Socrates is irresponsible. Leaving your family and purposefully living an impoverished life, as well as choosing death rather than going back to support them is plenty irresponsible on its own. But when you consider the time period Socrates lived in and the fact that the mother of his children would likely not be able to make enough money to support a family, it makes Socrates look like more like a jerk than someone who is irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the opinion that Socrates is Psychologically naïve. He said that "Nobody willingly does wrong" which is far from the truth. In fact, any human should know from past experiences that people purposefully do things they know are wrong, and wrong doing is not only the product of arrogance. Socrates also dismisses habit, which is once again a pretty basic human idea. Habit has a large effect on people's decisions and everyday life. Socrates's lack of psychological knowledge shows through his misunderstanding of these two concepts.
I also agree that Socrates is parochial. While he does diversify the types of people he talks to, all of those people are within one group, as he never leads Athens, or shows any interest in what ideas people of other countries might have. It may seem as if Socrates is questioning a diverse group of people, but in reality he is only sampling from a relatively like-minded group of people. He is even more close minded in the way he thinks people should view life. No poems, physics or philology for Socrates. Only the Socratic method and philosophy. Socrates claims to be on this journey searching for the truth, but he doesn't explore other methods to find said truth.
And while I completely agree with Wilson's last point of Socrates being a rationalist, I disagree with her claim that it is a bad thing. If Socrates is searching for the truth, I see no reason why that wouldn't be based completely on logic. While it may be a determent to Socrates the person, Socrates the philosopher only benefits from being a rationalist.
-Jayson
1
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Dr.Wilson’s point of Socrates being an armature. Sure, he may not have been the brightest when it came to supporting himself financially, but he wasn’t an armature. Now there are some things she says in this point that I agree with like teachers getting paid. If anything, this sort of boils down to the arguments between private and public schools. Just because I got to public school and as such do not have to pay to attend (aside from taxes but I don’t have to do that yet) this does not mean that I feel any less that a private school student on how much I want to be in school.
3
Here I must also disagree with Dr. Willson. The whole point of being an ancient Greek philosopher is to talk and discuss your philosophies. So being a chatterbox is something that is very important in this profession. Not only that but her point on him valuing thought over action is directly contradicting philosophy. This is not science which means that typically ideas are not tested, so at the end of the day it is just talk and thoughts with meaning to them.
5
Here I must agree with her. He talks about how if you are good nothing bad can happen to you. This is simply not true. Bad things happen to good people, it's a fact of life. Although I believe the author tends to jump to conclusions I would agree when she says that it would mean we would assume no need for those in occupations that keep us safe.
7
This is another place I have to agree with her. A very key part of philosophy is to be open minded and listen to others' opinions. He believes that the only people he can learn anything from is the small group of men who he is friends with. Despite the fact that he would discuss things with random passersby on the streets at the end of the day he doesn’t actually try to learn anything from what they say.
-Emma
I agree with the standpoint that Socrates is irresponsible. When one decides to have children, they agree to the responsibilities that come along with it. That means to take care of them until they can take care of themselves. Socrates failed to do this. He left his wifes and kids with nothing. His kids were still young, so they could not yet make a living by themselves. They still needed a father to teach them all the important things that a father needs to teach his son. Socrates had a chance to get out and help his family out, but chose to leave them to fend for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the standpoint that Socrates denies that pain matters. He states that, “to the good man no harm can come”. This viewpoint is ridiculous. Harm and pain does not care for whether you are a “good person” or a “bad person”. Everyone experiences pain or harm in their life.
I agree with the viewpoint that Socrates is psychologically naive because he declared that “Nobody does wrong willingly”. Just because people know what is right, does not mean they will follow that. In school, students know that cheating is wrong, yet they do it anyway for their own self interest. Socrates neglects that self conscious motives play a role in decision making.
I disagree with the viewpoint that Socrates is a chatter-box. He may like to talk, but I do not think that this takes away from his philosophical ideas. I do not think that just because he talks, that he views talking over actions. This is an assumption that the author, Emily Wilson, makes with weak evidence to back it up. I believe this viewpoint to be invalid due to the lack of strong evidence to support the claim she makes.
Charlie Cusimano
1. An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid;
ReplyDeleteTo be skilled is not to get paid the best. I disagree with the author's stance here, she seems to believe that if his work is to be of value, he must get aid for it or charge more. I think her thoughts may be caused by the stage of capitalism many of us modern people had been raised in, but money does not equal direct value for many things, and since Socrates was peddling thoughts and education, I find Socrates mature and even kind to be willing to offer little payment for his services. Socrates spent his life doing this, pondering, so he is not an amature, if there could be such a thing in philosophy. I say that because everyone has thoughts and opinions, which in itself is the nature of philosophy. Everyone has opinions, even if that opinion is to not have one, which makes everyone a philosopher and no one an amature.
2. Irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind
Socrates lived and died in his thoughts and for his morals. While I think he should have perhaps tried to set his wife and kids up for a better future, I do understand that Socrates had a point to make and a lesson to teach, and he did just that, his death aiding his message in a profound way.
5. Felt that pain didn't matter - if you were good, though wrong/harm was done to you, the real harm is in the sinner or the wrongdoer;
I think the talk of pain is subjective, everyone has different opinions. In this instance, I agree with Socrates, I think pain is just an annoying side effect of actions, but I know many people who hate pain and do much to avoid it, even if there is a reward. Let's take piercings for example. I have many, the pain versus reward balance puts the piercing in favor of the pain. On the other hand, many people don’t get piercings because the pain outweighs the piercing, which is totally understandable.
To talk in a not-physical sense, extremes must be avoided. I think that if someone hurts another, the person who dealt the violence is the harm, but if someone were to die (like Socrates), no matter the harm, someone was taken from this plane so the harm then travels through the person who dealt the harm and ripples into loved ones and family.
9. Superstitious - sometimes, philosophers mean that someone who is religious is superstitious, but the way she wrote this passage, she made him sound a bit loony (eccentric if you want to put a good spin on it) for listening to the voice inside his head. Is that voice his conscience or was hearing voices like the math professor in A Beautiful Mind?
Is not every great thinker a bit looney, is not every artist sad? When one dedicates their life to thinking, they are stuck in their own head. I have no judgment of those who might be weird, they often have the best thoughts. I think Socrates' habits, (If transcribed correctly, which could very much have been fabricated), should not be judgments of his teachings.
Lily D.