Socratic Discussion of Justice

[GoldRock 6,165]

This is rather frustrating. The point of a debate is to defend a point or thesis. You stated a while ago what you were arguing, and now you say you aren't arguing about anything.

Yes, I came up with an argument and then defeated it myself, offering a conclusion drawn from this part of the discussion, so we could continue to further discuss the original subject of justice... I came up with an argument. You produced counter-arguments, which I rebuffed. I defeated my own argument, and stated that we can now agree on the fact that we cannot prove whether we are flawed or not, though we both think we are.

 

Someday, you will realise the logic in defeating an argument you yourself have produced as an example rather than letting it be destroyed by your opponent, so you can draw from this example to strengthen an overall argument (ie I conceded that we cannot prove whether we are flawed or not, and shall use this fact to argue that our justice cannot be proven to be perfect, if you wish to continue this debate). Basically, I have disowned my own argument before you could defeat it, which will have been a symbolic victory for you in this debate, had I let it occur. Now, to those reading this debate, it would appear that you're simply repeating me, and that I'm one step ahead of you. Sneaky, eh?

 

In other words, sometimes it is good to lose a battle if it will help you to win a war, by saving your best troops (or in this case, best arguments) for use elsewhere, rather than throwing them randomly at the enemy where their potential will not be maximised. Let your enemy exhaust himself in trying to win the short-term glory of a battle, and then you can strike to win the war. See, look at how successfully I have frustrated you by dodging a good argument of yours, rather than suffering the blow it will inevitably have dealt on my side of the debate?

 

 

Now I have explained the strategical reasoning behind why I have suddenly backed down and let you gain ground at this point, shall we move on?

Edited October 5, 2013 by GoldRock

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Let us move on then. You, being the self-proclaimed wiser, must take the lead.

[Scribo 167]

Guys. Respect. It goes a long way. Arrogance doesn't.

[GoldRock 6,165]

Let us move on then. You, being the self-proclaimed wiser, must take the lead.

My apologies, that was not the way my post was meant to be interpreted, though I see how it could have been - I was simply annoyed with your interrogation of my debating skills, which came across in a superior manner. Therefore, I wanted to display that I believe I know what I'm doing, and that I am ready to continue our debate in a sensible fashion. Sorry if parts of my response weren't that courteous; I will try not to phrase my posts in such a way again, though I hope you could look past its tone to the content within it. After all, we are only human, and we both agree that we think humans are flawed ;)

[Scribo 167]

I'll take the lead then. We've established that although justice itself is perfect, we cannot perform it perfectly in our flawed capacity. Does this then mean that we should never try to get better? For a pursuit is that which is pursued, that is, that which is continually sought after. Accordingly, should we then practice our imperfect justice, being that it is flawed?

[flae999 282]

English lovers....

[GoldRock 6,165]

^Yes, I admit that to be true :lol:

 

I'll take the lead then. We've established that although justice itself is perfect, we cannot perform it perfectly in our flawed capacity. Does this then mean that we should never try to get better? For a pursuit is that which is pursued, that is, that which is continually sought after. Accordingly, should we then practice our imperfect justice, being that it is flawed?

Well, in answer to the points that you have raised, I think that whilst we cannot achieve a perfect justice, we have the opportunity to come close to it - therefore, it would make sense for us to try and get better, as being flawed does not restrict us from lessening the effects of our flaws. Also, I'd like to counter your last question with questions of my own: Is flawed justice worse than no justice at all? Does the answer to that depend on the circumstances?

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Justice is perfect. How, then, if it is used by an imperfect being? Does this imperfection negate it completely? For if it did, justice would not exist. But we know justice exists, and it must conform to the non-contradiction premise, so a flawed use of justice must exist. How should we then approach justice, being imperfect? For if justice cannot be nullified by a flawed use of it, how can if function? Let us examine a flawed use of it. Those who are imperfect, by nature seek their own good. Thus, they would be prone to use justice in a way that benefits themselves, and thus use justice as an injustice. If one, however, was in pursuit of justice in its perfection, he would have a good motive, and use justice--albeit in a flawed way--in a manner that best mirrors justice.

It is, then, better to use an imperfect justice than none at all, provided the user has the correct motive.

[GoldRock 6,165]

Justice is perfect. How, then, if it is used by an imperfect being? Does this imperfection negate it completely? For if it did, justice would not exist. But we know justice exists, and it must conform to the non-contradiction premise, so a flawed use of justice must exist. How should we then approach justice, being imperfect? For if justice cannot be nullified by a flawed use of it, how can if function? Let us examine a flawed use of it. Those who are imperfect, by nature seek their own good. Thus, they would be prone to use justice in a way that benefits themselves, and thus use justice as an injustice. If one, however, was in pursuit of justice in its perfection, he would have a good motive, and use justice--albeit in a flawed way--in a manner that best mirrors justice.

It is, then, better to use an imperfect justice than none at all, provided the user has the correct motive.

Well said, I agree. However, if one practices imperfect justice with a selfish motive, can that still be classed as justice at all (albeit very bad justice)? If so, when does flawed justice cross the line into injustice?

Edited October 8, 2013 by GoldRock

[Scribo 167]

It's a pity this discussion faded out. Was udoubtedly the most intelligent correspondence in the whole forum.

[alex_is_the_best 87]

You guys talk a lot in this topic.

[GoldRock 6,165]

It's a pity this discussion faded out. Was udoubtedly the most intelligent correspondence in the whole forum.

Ah, this topic again... Yeah, it was, by quite a bit :lol:

[Eragon 13,876]

You guys talk a lot in this topic.

Why shouldn't they? That's why "Off topic" was invented :P

[monkeyburn 13,522]

Bearing in mind that Plato's translation of Socrates, is based upon his own political perspective, and security for those times. We are forced to respond to Plato, or not. And then I ask, "What justice is it when another man speaks for others, and yet not himself?". I find it highly ironic, to this point, that you should bring  Polemarchus' assertion to the forefront. Simple logic has marked history in a vengeful manner, where from to give freely to those you have taken from is true reward for unjust acts. Whether or not we acknowledge such acts, is our own personal experience, which in turn poses another question. "Have we really learned from the mistakes of the past, or will vengeance rule?"

 

P.S. At this point I will pause, for I have a dental appointment to keep..."Ouch!"  

Edited April 24, 2014 by monkeyburn

[5556632_II 50]

ka pootis  ( ͝° ͜ʖ͡°)

[Scribo 167]

Bearing in mind that Plato's translation of Socrates, is based upon his own political perspective, and security for those times. We are forced to respond to Plato, or not. And then I ask, "What justice is it when another man speaks for others, and yet not himself?". I find it highly ironic, to this point, that you should bring  Polemarchus' assertion to the forefront. Simple logic has marked history in a vengeful manner, where from to give freely to those you have taken from is true reward for unjust acts. Whether or not we acknowledge such acts, is our own personal experience, which in turn poses another question. "Have we really learned from the mistakes of the past, or will vengeance rule?"

 

P.S. At this point I will pause, for I have a dental appointment to keep..."Ouch!"  

 

 

 

Ouch indeed. Your grammar (or lack thereof) alone is worth that comment.

 

There's no cause for demerit in writing for another, and if I were you, I'd think twice before I criticized a book that has stood the test of time and received acclaim for the past 2500 years--a book that has shaped the minds and lives of Western civilization. I also note that you contradict yourself when you say that Plato's "translation" of Socrates' philosophy (it's not a translation--more like a paraphrase) is subject to "his own political perspective", but you go on to say in your next sentence that he speaks not for himself but another. I'm not entirely sure if you were speaking english in your last couple sentences, but it seemed as though you were trying to communicate something to this effect: that Polemarchus' quoting of Simonides' philosophy is ironic (?) because in our modernity, it's rare that each is given what is owed. However, I haven't the slightest clue what your "vengeance" is or where it came from, or how it has any contextual pertinence, nor how it could "rule" given a disregard of progressivism. Could you explain yourself?

[monkeyburn 13,522]

Ouch indeed. Your grammar (or lack thereof) alone is worth that comment.

 

There's no cause for demerit in writing for another, and if I were you, I'd think twice before I criticized a book that has stood the test of time and received acclaim for the past 2500 years--a book that has shaped the minds and lives of Western civilization. I also note that you contradict yourself when you say that Plato's "translation" of Socrates' philosophy (it's not a translation--more like a paraphrase) is subject to "his own political perspective", but you go on to say in your next sentence that he speaks not for himself but another. I'm not entirely sure if you were speaking english in your last couple sentences, but it seemed as though you were trying to communicate something to this effect: that Polemarchus' quoting of Simonides' philosophy is ironic (?) because in our modernity, it's rare that each is given what is owed. However, I haven't the slightest clue what your "vengeance" is or where it came from, or how it has any contextual pertinence, nor how it could "rule" given a disregard of progressivism. Could you explain yourself?

To answer your last question: I could explain myself, if you are willing to do the same, instead of quoting what you have learned in books. Not that there is anything wrong with books. Just that I posted what I was thinking, or feeling at the moment, based upon the life and death of Socrates, according to what I have also read from books. There is not much that we can go on, as far as his own writings are concerned, but what we can rely upon are those circumstances which brought about his execution. Circumstances which Plato has many times pandered to, in order to save his own neck. Plato does convert the acts of Socrates into his own rendition. Therefore it is a translation. To paraphrase those acts would require the same intention as Socrates, and that is not evident, by the lifestyle of Plato vs that of Socrates. With Socrates, you either jump in the water all the way, or not at all. Plato's toes are wet...Yes books are a  great learning tool, but try and put that knowledge to practical application. There's where the real meat and potatoes are. And I'm sorry that you feel the need to criticize my "grammar (or lack thereof)" in order to bolster your dominance in this matter. In the future I'll try to remember that this is not a gaming forum, but that would also be a contradiction.

 

P.S.

Edited April 25, 2014 by monkeyburn

[red_tank_the_best 300]

Old topic...

[Scribo 167]

To answer your last question: I could explain myself, if you are willing to do the same, instead of quoting what you have learned in books. Not that there is anything wrong with books. Just that I posted what I was thinking, or feeling at the moment, based upon the life and death of Socrates, according to what I have also read from books. There is not much that we can go on, as far as his own writings are concerned, but what we can rely upon are those circumstances which brought about his execution. Circumstances which Plato has many times pandered to, in order to save his own neck. Plato does convert the acts of Socrates into his own rendition. Therefore it is a translation. To paraphrase those acts would require the same intention as Socrates, and that is not evident, by the lifestyle of Plato vs that of Socrates. With Socrates, you either jump in the water all the way, or not at all. Plato's toes are wet...Yes books are a  great learning tool, but try and put that knowledge to practical application. There's where the real meat and potatoes are. And I'm sorry that you feel the need to criticize my "grammar (or lack thereof)" in order to bolster your dominance in this matter. In the future I'll try to remember that this is not a gaming forum, but that would also be a contradiction.

 

 

I'm not explaining anything at this point--I'm just trying to make heads or tails of your relative nonsense. Speaking of nonsense, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about when you speak of the circumstances and cause of Socrates' death and Plato's "pandering" to those circumstances. First of all, one doesn't "pander" to circumstances. Second, Plato was most certainly not trying to "save his own neck". If you had the first clue what you were talking about, you'd know Plato had the same conviction about Socrates' philosophy that Socrates himself did--conviction that allowed Socrates to face death without fear.

Moreover, the definition of a translation is "the process of translating words or text from one language into another", which does not fit your description of a converted rendition. Why is Plato's intention not the same as Socrates? Where's your textual evidence? Your argument is, apart from being a hodgepodge of grammatical errors, completely irrelevant because you give no evidence to support your thesis. That's the reason I quote these books: to provide textual evidence that will support my argument. I suggest you do the same.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Scribo

[GoldRock 6,165]

Ouch indeed. Your grammar (or lack thereof) alone is worth that comment.

 

...I'm not entirely sure if you were speaking english in your last couple sentences...

I'm not explaining anything at this point--I'm just trying to make heads or tails of your relative nonsense.... If you had the first clue what you were talking about...

 

Your argument is, apart from being a hodgepodge of grammatical errors, completely irrelevant...

How not to debate... I see those comments as fairly discourteous, and I applaud monkeyburn's polite and light-hearted response.

 

...and if I were you, I'd think twice before I criticized a book that has stood the test of time and received acclaim for the past 2500 years--a book that has shaped the minds and lives of Western civilization.

The age or number of supporters of a particular source does not make that source any more valid.

 

In any case, I would personally not respond to your arguments until you learn to set them forth in a respectful manner. But I appreciate the points you're making ^_^

Edited April 26, 2014 by GoldRock

[Scribo 167]

 

The age or number of supporters of a particular source does not make that source any more valid.

 

 

 

The age and acclaim of a source makes ALL the difference. Don't make assertions based on your feelings, kid; you'll just display your ignorance.

 

Like I said before, I'm NOT debating here--there's nothing to debate with ignorant kids or incoherent dogmatists. I'm left with picking apart and criticizing inferior "arguments". Seal clubbing? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.

[GoldRock 6,165]

The age and acclaim of a source makes ALL the difference. Don't make assertions based on your feelings, kid; you'll just display your ignorance.

 

Like I said before, I'm NOT debating here--there's nothing to debate with ignorant kids or incoherent dogmatists. I'm left with picking apart and criticizing inferior "arguments". Seal clubbing? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.

Try reading the first sentences of both these links:

 

Argumentum ad populum.

Argument from age.

 

The age and acclaim of a source makes no difference to reliability or validity, full stop. Maybe it would help if you were an 'ignorant kid' like me, you'd be able to go back to school and learn how sources work.

 

Also, you may find this page useful: Superiority complex.

[moth99999 77]

what is this? :blink: so many long posts

Edited April 26, 2014 by moth99999

[monkeyburn 13,522]

I'm not explaining anything at this point--I'm just trying to make heads or tails of your relative nonsense. Speaking of nonsense, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about when you speak of the circumstances and cause of Socrates' death and Plato's "pandering" to those circumstances. First of all, one doesn't "pander" to circumstances. Second, Plato was most certainly not trying to "save his own neck". If you had the first clue what you were talking about, you'd know Plato had the same conviction about Socrates' philosophy that Socrates himself did--conviction that allowed Socrates to face death without fear.

Moreover, the definition of a translation is "the process of translating words or text from one language into another", which does not fit your description of a converted rendition. Why is Plato's intention not the same as Socrates? Where's your textual evidence? Your argument is, apart from being a hodgepodge of grammatical errors, completely irrelevant because you give no evidence to support your thesis. That's the reason I quote these books: to provide textual evidence that will support my argument. I suggest you do the same.

Every step we take is wisdom, if we recognize the knowledge we gain from the previous step. I really don't blame you for responding with provocation. This doesn't mean that we must search for that which is to blame. Just that nobody is perfect. Not even those who scribe books. Yes, books are a good learning tool, but they make a poor set of shoes...Have a good day... :)

[Scribo 167]

Try reading the first sentences of both these links:

 

Argumentum ad populum.

Argument from age.

 

The age and acclaim of a source makes no difference to reliability or validity, full stop. Maybe it would help if you were an 'ignorant kid' like me, you'd be able to go back to school and learn how sources work.

 

Also, you may find this page useful: Superiority complex.

 

No, the fact that millions of reasonable, intelligent people have understood and agreed with a source doesn't necessitate its being true, just like the fact that most reasonable, intelligent people that know you would say you exist doesn't necessitate your existence. That's not the point. In attempting to point out a logical error in my argument (I was criticizing his non-logical criticism of the book), you commit a fallacy yourself: the red herring. Moreover, your "argument from age" objection is completey invalid; I made no such claim in my criticism. Lastly, I don't act superior because I'm defending a weakness; I'm superior because there are no weaknesses in my arguments. Bring it on, kid.