The Greatest Music
What do you want and expect from philosophy? If we take Socrates claim seriously that he does not know anything noble and good (Apology 21d) we are confronted by a number of questions and problems.
Plato gives us two incompatible images of the philosopher. The first is the lover of wisdom who desires to be wise but is not. The second is the philosopher in the Republic who does possess this wisdom, who has knowledge of the just, the beautiful, and the good.
If philosophy is the desire for something we may never possess then of what value is human wisdom, of knowing that we do not know?
Socrates never abandons his pursuit of the good. It is not for him an intellectual puzzle to be solved. It is a way of life. The pursuit of the good is good not because the good is something we might discover. The pursuit of the good is ultimately not about knowing the good but about being good.
We are easily charmed, dazzled, and confounded by the epistemological possibilities and problems raised by Plato. By comparison, self-knowledge and the examined life may seem small, pale, and trite. But the mundane everyday world we live in is what is of most immediate and persisting importance to the Socratic philosopher.
Phronesis, often translated as practical wisdom or prudence, is not the same as sophia. It is about sound judgment rather than knowledge.
In the Phaedo Socrates tells his friends a recurring dream in which he is told to make and practice music. (61a) He thought that the dream is telling him to do what he is already doing since
Now, in prison and about to die, he reconsiders:
But, he says:
Of course, despite what he says here, we know that Platos Socrates, although he did not write, is a highly skilled story-teller. He distinguishes between the music of philosophy and music in the popular sense.(61a) For the purposes of making popular music he thinks that second-hand stories will do. The question arises as to how much of what Socrates says in the dialogues is the reworking of second-hand stories?
In the Phaedo reasoned argument has reached its limit. It fails to prove claims regarding the soul and an afterlife. This raises the danger of misologic, hatred of reasoned argument. In response to this danger Socrates turns from argument to stories or music.
Socrates turns from the problem of the limits of sound arguments to the soundness of those who make and judge arguments.
He continues:
Making it seem to be the case is something that the sophists do. Investigating what seems to be true and making it seem to be true are two different things. That he means the latter is confirmed by what follows:
Here, for the first time in the Phaedo, Socrates suggests that there might be nothing at all for those who die, that they have met their end. The timing is important, coming immediately after the questioning of the ability of arguments to establish the truth.
There are things that he thinks it is better to believe to be true even if they are not. The philosopher may object that she is interested in what is true, not in what seems to be true, and certainly not in making it seem to be true. But the truth is, there are things that we do not know to be true. Rather than this leading to nihilistic skepticism, in the absence of knowledge Socrates asks us to consider what it is that is best for us to believe as true. This not for the sake of the truth but for the sake of the soul.
He does not, however, want his friends to abandon the truth. He tells them:
Perhaps this is why Plato never speaks in his own name in his dialogues. As he might say, following Socrates example: you should pay little regard to Plato and much more regard to the truth.
Making philosophical music requires both reason and imagination. Both arguments and stories, including the stories we tell ourselves. Stories come to us chronologically before reasoned arguments and logically after reasoned argument comes to its end. I will end this with another question: Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories?
Plato gives us two incompatible images of the philosopher. The first is the lover of wisdom who desires to be wise but is not. The second is the philosopher in the Republic who does possess this wisdom, who has knowledge of the just, the beautiful, and the good.
If philosophy is the desire for something we may never possess then of what value is human wisdom, of knowing that we do not know?
Socrates never abandons his pursuit of the good. It is not for him an intellectual puzzle to be solved. It is a way of life. The pursuit of the good is good not because the good is something we might discover. The pursuit of the good is ultimately not about knowing the good but about being good.
We are easily charmed, dazzled, and confounded by the epistemological possibilities and problems raised by Plato. By comparison, self-knowledge and the examined life may seem small, pale, and trite. But the mundane everyday world we live in is what is of most immediate and persisting importance to the Socratic philosopher.
maybe this alone is the right coin for virtue, the coin for which all things must be exchanged - phronesis. Maybe this is the genuine coin for which and with which all things must be bought and sold(Phaedo 69 b-c)
Phronesis, often translated as practical wisdom or prudence, is not the same as sophia. It is about sound judgment rather than knowledge.
In the Phaedo Socrates tells his friends a recurring dream in which he is told to make and practice music. (61a) He thought that the dream is telling him to do what he is already doing since
...philosophy is the greatest music.(61a)
Now, in prison and about to die, he reconsiders:
I reflected that a poet should, if he were really going to be a poet, make stories rather than arguments
But, he says:
being no teller of tales myself, I therefore used some I had ready to hand (61b)
Of course, despite what he says here, we know that Platos Socrates, although he did not write, is a highly skilled story-teller. He distinguishes between the music of philosophy and music in the popular sense.(61a) For the purposes of making popular music he thinks that second-hand stories will do. The question arises as to how much of what Socrates says in the dialogues is the reworking of second-hand stories?
In the Phaedo reasoned argument has reached its limit. It fails to prove claims regarding the soul and an afterlife. This raises the danger of misologic, hatred of reasoned argument. In response to this danger Socrates turns from argument to stories or music.
Socrates turns from the problem of the limits of sound arguments to the soundness of those who make and judge arguments.
Well, he said, first and foremost we should guard carefully against this, and never allow into our souls the notion that no arguments are sound. Instead, it is much better to accept that we are not yet in a sound condition ourselves, and that we should take courage and be eager to attain a sound condition, you and the others, for the sake of the rest of your lives, and I for the sake of death itself.(90e-91a)
He continues:
I wont put my heart into making what I say seem to be true to those present, except as a side effect, but into making it seem to be the case to me myself as much as possible.(91a).
Making it seem to be the case is something that the sophists do. Investigating what seems to be true and making it seem to be true are two different things. That he means the latter is confirmed by what follows:
For I am calculating - behold how self-servingly!- that if what Im saying happens to be true, Im well off believing it; and if theres nothing at all for one whos met his end, well then, Ill make myself so much less unpleasant with lamenting to those who are present during this time, the time before my death.(91b)
Here, for the first time in the Phaedo, Socrates suggests that there might be nothing at all for those who die, that they have met their end. The timing is important, coming immediately after the questioning of the ability of arguments to establish the truth.
There are things that he thinks it is better to believe to be true even if they are not. The philosopher may object that she is interested in what is true, not in what seems to be true, and certainly not in making it seem to be true. But the truth is, there are things that we do not know to be true. Rather than this leading to nihilistic skepticism, in the absence of knowledge Socrates asks us to consider what it is that is best for us to believe as true. This not for the sake of the truth but for the sake of the soul.
He does not, however, want his friends to abandon the truth. He tells them:
You, however, if you take my advice, should pay little regard to Socrates, and much more regard to the truth, and if I actually seem to you to be saying anything true then you should agree, but if not, you should resist with every possible argument, being careful lest in my eagerness I deceive both myself and yourselves at the same time, and depart like a bee leaving my sting behind.(91b-91c)
Perhaps this is why Plato never speaks in his own name in his dialogues. As he might say, following Socrates example: you should pay little regard to Plato and much more regard to the truth.
Making philosophical music requires both reason and imagination. Both arguments and stories, including the stories we tell ourselves. Stories come to us chronologically before reasoned arguments and logically after reasoned argument comes to its end. I will end this with another question: Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories?
Comments (133)
I take the term philosophy to denote, not just the general definition as love of wisdom, but also the state loving wisdom (akin to loving kindness). Surveying the state of humanity, generally, it is abundantly obvious that the love of wisdom, and the state of being it denotes, is rare and hardly valued. On the other hand, delusion and self-deception seem to be in abundant supply, both amongst ordinary individuals and amongst many heads of state and leaders of society. Perhaps one role of philosophy is in pointing that out.
What, in a consumer society, is valued more than material abundance, comfort and convenience, progress and novelty? What ultimate end do we entertain, beyond a long life, free of illness and disturbance? What vision of humanitys place in the cosmos does our culture encourage, other than technocratic domination and the distant hope of escaping Earth itself? What does philosophy stand for in such a world, beyond the enculturation of the skills required for such pursuits?
Quoting Fooloso4
Might it not be the case that any kind of higher truth can only be grasped by those capable and prepared? That some form of philosophical ascent might be required? Isnt that the meaning of anagoge? What was the aim of Platos Academy? It was the pursuit of knowledge, particularly in the realms of philosophy, mathematics, and science. Plato believed in the importance of rigorous intellectual inquiry to understand the underlying principles of reality and to achieve knowledge of the Forms, especially the Form of the Good.
The Academy emphasized the dialectics, seen as crucial for achieving philosophical understanding. Mathematics was a core component of the Academys curriculum. The entrance to the Academy is famously inscribed with Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here. Dianoia, mathematical and geometrical knowledge, was higher than opinion, but lower than noesis, direct intuitive insight into the ideas.
The Academy aimed to educate individuals not only in intellectual matters but also in moral virtues, aiming to cultivate wise and virtuous leaders. The Academy functioned as a community of scholars engaged in collective study and dialogue. It was not just a place for passive learning but an active intellectual community where ideas were debated and developed.
Plato saw the Academy as a place to train future statesmen and leaders. He believed that those who understood philosophical truths were best equipped to govern society justly and effectively. The principles and aims of the Academy were heavily influenced by the teachings of Socrates, Platos mentor. The Socratic emphasis on questioning, ethics, and the examined life shaped the educational approach of the Academy.
So - what about that curriculum might amount to an edifying myth?
I was influenced greatly with Wittgenstein, and the way in which he addresses your final question of an awesome opening post. Wittgenstein did away with centuries of footnotes to Plato by actually saying something very similar which you are saying. Furthermore, many ordinary people who were attracted to philosophy as phronesis seem to be these Victorian stoics or Aristotelian virtue ethicists seeking emotional balance and tranquility. Although in some regards the pursuit of eudaimonia might be perceived as a distraction in regards to what you are saying, much like the Christian stories of an afterlife deserved for being good.
I'm not sure if you have read Pierre Hadot, who praised philosophy as a way of life. He's pretty accessible and well regarded.
I hope philosophy helps me to live less foolishly ...
This seems to bring up some important questions:
How does one know if one is being good if one doesn't know what is good or in what goodness consists? Plato is often critical of the Homeric heros and offers Socrates up as a new sort of hero to supplant them. But to suppose that Socrates is more virtuous than Achilles, and that he makes a better role model, is seemingly to suppose something about goodness and what it consists in.
Likewise:
If we are to believe things because doing so will make us better it seems that we need some idea of what "better" consists in. Why isn't it just honor and glory?
I think a major current that runs through dialogues is a sort of "meta-ethics," for lack of a better term. Plato is speaking to skeptics. "Perhaps you don't believe me on this or that, but look, here is the bare minimum you need to even be able to determine what is good, regardless of what that good turns out to be."
Being ruled by reason turns out to be a meta virtue. It's crucial to being able to inquire into what is truly virtuous in the first place. One needs the self-control, honesty, etc. to go out and discover the good. One needs to be able to inquire and debate in good faith. Likewise, the constellation of virtues associated with the "rule of reason," are essential to acting on anything one has learned about what is righteous, regardless of what that turns out to be.
But this isn't all Plato is doing. The dialogues aim at different audiences. This is the message to the skeptics. He has other things to say for people who have already started down this road and are ready to hear more. Likewise he has myths like the reincarnation story with the Homeric heroes at the end of the Republic for those who have somewhat "missed the point," but might nonetheless benefit from an edifying story.
Perhaps, but when it comes to communicating with one another it seems that Plato thinks we will always need images. One can only point to relative goods with words. Images contain something of what they are images of, but they remain images. Nonetheless, such stories can be suggestive of what lies beyond them.
Could more be done with words? Well, two millennia on we have the fruits of centuries of contemplative practice, the Philokalia for example, with its deep phenomenological and psychological studies and significant advice on praxis. But Plato had the inheritance he had to work with.
There can be no empirical evidence for the "truths" of philosophy. Philosophical truths are accepted on faith, and our faiths are determined by what seems most plausible to each of us. The only alternative to that would be to remain or become slaves to tradition and authorityand I think philosophy, with its open-ended questioning and uncertainty can be an antidote, along with science, the arts and literature, to that curtailing of human potential.
For that reason, I reject (for myself) organized religion in any form, although I acknowledge that it may be needed by those who cannot free themselves from the bonds of tradition and authority, bonds which Hegel refers to as "the aegis of tutelage".
Tradition reflects survivorship bias over centuries or even millennia. People who did not keep them, did not have any progeny, and disappeared in the course of history.
The fact that tradition actually matters, is something that western civilization will handsomely prove by collapsing and disappearing.
So, keep an eye on the imploding birth rate and the rapidly aging population. Just for the hell of it, keep watching the ongoing shit show.
I allowed that traditions and organized religions may be necessary for many. Nonetheless, they are hindrances to others. It is false to claim that those who reject tradition do not have progeny. Everyone "disappears in the course of history", so that is hardly a salient point.
Of course, social values matter, and you might refer to those as "tradition". But they change and become new (and hopefully improved) traditions over time. So, I will not disagree that societies without social values cannot survive for long. However, I doubt there actually are any such societies to begin with.
The danger of collapse we face today is on account of overuse of resources and neglect of the biosphere, and it is arguable that traditional tropes, such as the Biblical vision of God creating the world for the use of humanity have contributed to this looming crisis.
Our economic system is unsustainable, being predicated on endless growth, with collapse being the only alternative. Nothing to do with tradition, unless you count the tradition amongst economists of discounting ecological costs as a part of the economy. That greater disrupter of tradition, science, has been telling us how wrongheaded this economic thinking in terms of "externalities" is for at least more than half a century.
People who do not keep traditions in the West are rapidly dying out and being replaced by people who do keep traditions.
Well, that is what they are complaining about in Europe.
That is what is at stake in pretty much every election on the continent. It is not about to biosphere but about immigration. They do not want to make children but they also do not want to get replaced by people who do.
Quoting Janus
:100: :fire:
That may be a general trend, but I think you should be wary of too much generalization. The biosphere is the pressing concern, regardless of whether it is uppermost in most people's minds. If it had been and was now the most urgent issue in most people's minds, then we would arguably be in better position than we currently are.
:up: :up: Yes, that is the only conceivably good way forward...
Music to my ears!
Your excellent philosophy piece shows you are on top form. If you never write anything else, you could rest easy in the knowledge that you make the best kind of music. Substantive, light, informative and questioning. Worthy of publication in any journal. Many Congratulations!
So far (9am on 9th July 2024), it has attracted worthy and valuable responses. Let's hope that continues. I read it last night and it made me so very happy. That with Labour winning the General Election, consider my spirits raised.
I've had a prolonged stated of un-wellness. A hellish viral illness.
Thankfully, I'm regaining my stamina and vitality.
I admire your whole attitude to philosophy. You exemplify what I think is good about it. I am not sure that I can write that in your thread without seeming superficial and a fan-girl. Not sure that I have the brain power to tackle or even to think clearly about your points. I'm happy to read the posts of others who have clear and constructive thoughts and ideas, like:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
'Different audiences'
Fooloso4 has helped me grow from a point of not liking Plato to realising his great contribution; his cleverness in attracting all kinds of controversy. Participating in The Plato threads, reading and re-reading, there was always some new groove shaking and shaping. I felt the poetry and the music , even as I struggled.
This OP is so well-balanced and inspirational to new and old readers alike.
Quoting Fooloso4
Never! Stories arise from human interaction and the need to express experience and thoughts. Learning from and questioning the real and the imagined. Rock'n'roll :cool:
I think Wittgenstein is a Socratic. I linked to a thread a started on this.
Quoting Shawn
I have. Hadot also read and wrote on Wittgenstein.
There is a tendency to look beyond ourselves. No doubt Plato plays a role in promoting this tendency, but I think it was for Plato serious philosophical play. The real work is work on oneself.
We don't. Believing one does know when he does not is a problem.
(Phaedo 97b-d)
The question of what is best is inextricably linked to the question of the human good. About what is best we can only do our best to say what is best and why. The question of what is best turns from things in general to the human things and ultimately to the self for whom what is best is what matters most. The question of the good leads back to the problem of self-knowledge.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Having some idea of what is better is not knowing what is better. It is an opinion or belief. He could be wrong:
It is the question of what is better that is at issue. It involves deliberation about opinions about what is best. At best we do our best.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes. I agree. But we disagree as to what is being said to whom.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
We do need images. There are different kinds of images and different uses. We need images not just to communicate but to think and reason. The images used by the mathematicians is a good example.
We need not determine whether there is such a thing as a perfect circle in order to make use of these images. In fact, Socrates points out that such questions do not even arise for them.
This is what is at issue in the trial of Socrates. Some think that the tension between philosophy and the city remains with us but others think the tension has or can be resolved and that reason and revelation reconciled or that the solution is political tolerance, the separation of church and state. I think tradition is important but that we are not slaves to it as long as we question its authority. Questioning its authority has become part of our tradition.
And, I am sure, anathema to others.
But thanks. I never object when someone says nice things about me, even if they are not true.
Just as not everyone agrees on what is the 'Greatest Music' at any given point in their lives...
What matters is being given the opportunity to listen to other perspectives, even if/when our mind rebels.
So many stories...growing in, through and from all kinds of tradition...we can't read them all, even if we wanted to. Life, love and thinking can be overwhelming.
It's good to take a break from the challenges and rest a while. To appreciate balance and a sense of peace...but aren't we all drawn back to the excitement and fun of the philosophy wars?
Dancing up and down the scales...the black and white running into each other...
I am at a loss for how the passage you cite is supposed to support your claim. In context, the passage you cite is Socrates discussing his initial fascination with Anaxagoras' materialism, and how Socrates claims to have [I]misunderstood[/I] the theory. Socrates was hoping Anaxagoras was going to give him some sort of explanation of things in terms of their telos and what is bestan explanation of the material world of becoming in these terms. He ultimately writes off the materialists because they seem to be missing an explanation of final causes.
Ok, is everyone equally likely to be wrong? Must we be equally skeptical of all claims about what is good? Might we has well question if this "questioning" really has any value or if it's just a way for egg heads to waste their time?
But such deliberations never move one past a state of skeptical nescience? What exactly is the benefit of "trying your best" to understand what justice is?
Which claim?
The first:
Quoting Fooloso4
is not intended to be supported by the quote. The second one:
Quoting Fooloso4
is in response to the quote from the Phaedo.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't think so:
(105b-c)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
No.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
No.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I do not think that questioning what is good is a waste of time. Are we to just accept all claims about what is good? Or reject them all?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
If you mean that one never moves past not knowing to knowledge of the just, the beautiful, and the good, I don't think we do. I do think, however, that Socratic knowledge of ignorance means more than just knowing that you are ignorant. It is knowledge how to think and judge and live in the face of ignorance.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It may prevent you from acting unjustly or wrongly accusing others of acting unjustly. We act on our limited understanding. What alternative do we have?
I agree, but I think it depends on what is meant by "tradition". There is the philosophical tradition, then there are the changing, mostly unexamined (until they are) socio-cultural traditions that amount to dogma.
It has long been a central part of philosophy to question dogma, but how often do the arrived at alternatives to dogma themselves crystallize into dogma? I conclude that the dialectic is radically open-ended, that there is no final endpoint of knowledge or understanding. That doesn't mean that our knowledge and understanding cannot improve as we go along.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Do you know what is the Good? If someone claims to know what is the Good, do you know, can you know, that she knows what is the Good?
There seem to be many things that all (or at least most) people take to be good. Does that consensus amount to knowing what is the Good, or what goodness universally consists in, its essence?
Why would trying to know what is good but failing to do so teach you how to act good?
If what you learn in your inquiries suggest you should do that perhaps. Many people have plumbed the depths of this question and determined that there is no such thing as "goodness" and thus that they should do whatever pleases them and is to their advantage.
But I suppose this brings up Glaucon's question in the Republic, why should we even care about being good or just? If we can't even know that we are being good or just, or what these things consist in, what would be the benefit to us? Why wouldn't it be enough just to have people think we're good and just?
This question seems pretty easy to answer if you have an idea of what goodness consists in, no? Otherwise, you might consider whether or not that person really pursues what they claim the good is. Whatever is truly good it seems should be choiceworthy, or else it hardly seems deserving of the name.
Consider how well consensus works as a measure of truth for any other question in history: the nature of disease, the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, etc.
As a metric, it seems to be quite lacking.
A good question. It depends, as always, on what is meant by 'philosophy'. There is something about the word itself. It attracted me, like the word 'abroad'. It felt like it could be an escape or an exploration into foreign lands. Meeting new or other ways of living and thinking in different times and places. Absorbing all the senses of what it is to be human.
Initially, it was self-learning - books being at the fore. Reflecting and then wanting more. Guidance through the labyrinth. An academic course. A disappointing realisation that talking about Concepts of Creativity and Imagination was far from being creative and imaginative. It was dry as dust. However, it did serve as a basis. And my philosophy was to explore areas and themes important to me.
How people live. How might I live to feel and act so that the benefits outweigh the costs. Don't most of us want to be in a place of wellbeing - physically, mentally, socially?
Quoting Fooloso4
But do people need to know the philosophical concepts/theories of justice?
Knowledge is important; we get the facts right before we can quantify the gaps of inequality. However, we can simply look and see and feel the differences in attitude and care. The results of indifference and hostility. The restrictions of freedom or too much freedom to talk hate. To stir the anger. Can philosophy or psychology benefit humans by understanding how emotions can be manipulated? It's all in the mind?
Quoting Janus
See: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/tradition.html ?
There are different kinds of tradition or forms of philosophy, just as in poetry.
Within these we find rules and certain ways of writing (rhyme and reason) which might constrain if too tight. Don't we all need room to breathe and find our own way? To increase understanding and awareness of the beauty of both tradition and change.
Poetic tradition, as in a ghazal, changes with the modern but still its core remains. It is about adapting to what individuals want to explore. Just as in philosophy, it is about accessibility. New freedoms to share human experience.
Traditionally about love, the ghazal and the sonnet, have moved to include the realities of life.
A migrant's yearning for home and belonging.
Political reflections and real concerns about health. Cognitive decline, not just a concept.
Alzheimers:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/155783/alz-ghazal
Quoting Wayfarer
'Individuals' - what kind? I thought it exclusively for young males of high class? And, of course, any leaders would be men. Those were the times. Initially, that is one of the reasons I didn't 'take' to Plato and those that followed his tradition. Exclusive and elitist.
There is still much of that in philosophy but on TPF it is encouraging to read all kinds from all kinds.
And that includes the story-telling...
Indeed but much can be lost by judging the past by todays standards. I was never much moved by the complaints about the cultural hegemony of dead white males.
Indeed. And if I hadn't moved past my initial disgruntled feelings (not standards) to discover more, then I would have missed out. It takes an open mind and a flexibility of thought...even when we seem to have found something that seems to ring true. It is disturbing when traditionalists have a strong desire to keep the status quo. That which confers exclusive riches and benefits to the detriment of others. It is too easy to change laws hard fought for and criminalise those who protest or who are made homeless.
More could be said but heading for American politics now - currently not in a good place.
Interesting. Where do you mostly find this connection? How different would you expect them to be? Doesn't it depend on what is meant by the terms?
I haven't delved into the world of 'traditional philosophy'. Or 'modern culture' for that matter.
Given the various socio-political and economic forces that shape us, there will always be change, slow or speedy, in how we think about the world and our place in it. The relationships, strong or otherwise, between various factions can be explored for ways to improve understanding. All the better to fight?
Quoting Wayfarer
Evola is new to me but I've just read of him here. How 'traditionalism' is used to further the populist right:
Influencing the ideas of Steve Bannon - encouraging Trump.
Quoting How a mystical doctrine is reshaping the right - New Statesmen
It seems that there is indeed a rewinding of time and progress. Or is this all of an eternal cycle and we should expect it? Is this something we can fight against...?
No, but I understand that "The Good" is nonbeing.
I know that if she's a mortal, then she cannot "know" ...
Who wants or needs to know The Good or The Truth? These are only concepts bounced around by crazy philosophers or doubled-down crazed religious types.
It is about being the best we can be, given current knowledge of the world, applying reason and imagination to help balance feelings and emotion. For our own sakes. No?
Perhaps there is no specific goal - more of an open-ended exploration of what posters take from the questions posed? It could lead nowhere or everywhere. Or tied up in side-tracks.
How would you answer the first and final questions?
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, I agree.
Quoting Janus
I don't think it is a one-way street though.
And yet, he does care. The answer to that question matters to him.
The question that opens the discussion:
Quoting Fooloso4
asks what your goal might be, or, if philosophy is for you something that aims at a goal, and if so, can that goal be reached. Or if even through engagement the aim of the goal has changed.
But it seems you do. If you liken it to tennis then it is a game to be won or lost, depending on improvement of skills. The end goal is some kind of a victory. A final score or reckoning? Against what or who?
Quoting Lionino
There are different levels in both philosophy and tennis; amateurs and professionals with different goals and aspirations.
In academia:
Quoting What is Philosophy? - York University
Quoting Lionino
Yes, of course. And they bring their philosophical tool box with them, or not. Depending on their current goals, based on their values developed via critical thinking, introspection or simply living.
I didn't liken it in this aspect. The activity of tennis is to play it and nothing else, it is up to you whether you play it well and obey the rules. Likewise, the activity of doing philosophy is up to the individual. I don't expect anything from an activity (something abstract), I only expect something out of myself when I perform the activity. Therefore I don't expect anything from philosophy but from myself only.
When it comes to philosophy as an academic field, I can't expect much from it, as it is up to the departments of each university. I would just hope that the "philosophy" being done does not turn out to be politics dressing up as philosophy.
Quoting Lionino
Not sure how what you linked to doesnt count as philosophy. Im familiar with two of the authors mentioned, Karen Barad and Donna Haraway. Their work is rigorously philosophical.
Quoting Lionino
OK. So your 'scoring' is not about winning a philosophical argument against any other player. How then do you know how far you have upped your thinking game? How do you assess progress? Would you expect some coaching or guidance to help in learning or improving the necessary skills? Even recommendations for reading, watching or listening?
Where do the rules come from and are they always to be followed?
In tennis, for sure. In philosophy, there is more flexibility and questioning. What would be a first rule in philosophy?
I note your hope as to the content of academic philosophy. Why is that a concern for you? And why did you place quotation marks around the word philosophy?
Quoting Fooloso4
What has engagement with others meant for you and the way you think or live your life? Anything? Has it moved you or sparked interest in specific themes?
I know what a "sound argument" is in classical logic, I'm unsure what a "sound person" is. I would assume it's something like "being ruled by the rational part of the soul?"
But if the soundness of the person who judges arguments always only results in nescience and opinion, it's unclear to me what the benefit here is. Sound arguments are useful because they have clear terms, true premises, and valid conclusions, and thus tell us the truth of something. It seems that "sound people" in this case can never get to truth (or be sure that they have even if they do somehow attain to it), so the two are quite different.
So, when Nietzsche comes along and claims that "the rule of reason," and dialectical are both simply means for Socrates to carry out his ressentiment against a heroic society in which his weakness and ugliness preclude him from gaining status and power (Twilight of the Idols, "The Problem of Socrates," etc.) what's the response?
"Well Mr. Nietzsche, we both have opinions, and the truth about who is right cannot be discovered. Nonetheless, our mode of inquiry is superior."
Superior in virtue of what? Certainly not superior in virtue of leading to a greater knowledge of what is truly good.
Yes, he cares because he hopes Socrates can answer this question, that he can show [I]why[/I] we should prefer to be just. But if all Socrates can offer is "edifying myths" that try to prompt him towards justice (or rather, Socrates' idea of justice, which is mere opinion) then why exactly should Glaucon bother with such myths? Socrates has patently defaulted on attempting to explain why justice is good for the just person and has instead begun spinning stories to try to get people to go along with his preferred opinions like a sophist. Where is the benefit in following Socrates' stories or of being just? Surely Homer and Nietzsche's stories can make us feel as good, if not better.
I didn't say it doesn't. Within the article you find philosophy that is evidently politically motivated. Replace it with any other valid example that comes to mind.
There is nothing in either of my posts that suggests I think philosophy is about scoring.
Quoting Amity
{Something pretending {to be something it is not}} is, more often than not, harmful like most lies are.
Because the philosophy being done in that case would not be philosophy but politics.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
The philosophy of the IEP article you linked to concerns feminist epistemology.
'Feminist approaches to epistemology generally have their sources in one or more of the following traditions: feminist science studies, naturalistic epistemologies, cultural studies of science, Marxist feminism and related work in and about the social sciences, object relations theory and developmental psychology, epistemic virtue theory, postmodernism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and pragmatism. Many feminist epistemological projects incorporate more than one of these traditions.'
You consider this is not philosophy being done but politics? How so?
Quoting Lionino
Whats the difference between philosophically informed politics and politically informed philosophy? Cant we trace all political frameworks to underlying philosophical presuppositions?
Reflection, criticism, argument, and also storytelling.
The best philosophy, in my opinion, changes the way you think as you read it. It untangles a thought I didn't even know I was holding onto or offers another viewpoint or way I would not have considered without someone else having taken the time to put it into philosophical form. Sometimes that's a little uncomfortable but I've always found being exposed to a new way to think about the world worth it.
And so:
Quoting Fooloso4
No, but it's also not something I think we need to "grow out" of, exactly. Philosophy is full of stories! :D How else would we convey ideas? In setting out a context or a counter-example, so even in a bare-bones dialectical sense of philosophy, we'd still have to have some kind of narrative apparatus: The Trolley starts at point A then gets to Point B (the lever) which will lead to Point C or D, depending on what the actor in the story does. A beginning, a Climax, and a Resolution -- narrative.
Have you never felt that someone purpoted to be doing philosophy puts forth a position not because he thinks it is truthful but because it appeals to his political prejudices?
Do you think the following is more philosophy or (post-modern) politics?
The sound person is more than the ruling part of his soul. Consider the education of the guardians in the Republic:
(376e)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That is not the result, it is the condition from within which we judge.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
In line with what you said about Plato's dialogues:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Nietzsche says:
(Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 30)
As he says in the Forward to Twilight of the Idols, he is sounding out Idols with a hammer. He cheerfully smashes them, including Socrates the idol. But as Socrates advised his friends:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
And why does he hope Socrates can answer this question? This concern with being just is something he brings to the discussion.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
But that is not all he is doing. Aristotle says the rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic. The sophists are not the only ones who attempt to persuade us, and it is quite evident that myths can be persuasive. In some causes they can be so persuasive that there are those who believe them to be the truth.
Quoting Lionino
Im a philosopher, and that makes me a bit biased. I tend to think that whatever area of thought one purports to be involved in, one is appealing to ones philosophical prejudices. But I dont see that as a bad thing, given that for me truth comes down to nothing but a philosophical prejudice. What matters to me isnt whether an assertion accords with the way things really, really are, but what use we can make of it.
https://iep.utm.edu/fem-epis/
In general, this is a philosophical article. That is not to say there are no political elements. I am not sure how you reach the conclusions you do, that this is a pretence, or harmful lies. What harm is being done by considering and critiquing different perspectives and theories?
I had to return to this lengthy and substantive article to find the context of your quotes. It is not a topic that particularly intrigues me so I find it difficult to untangle. There are 7 sections. The first quote comes from:
2. Critiques of Rationality and Dualisms
'[...] Susan Hekmans (1990) work argues that dualisms of nature/culture, rational/irrational, subject/object, and masculine/feminine underwrite modernist epistemological projects and that feminist epistemology should aim to destabilize and deconstruct those dualisms. Hekman argues that such destablization can only take place if feminists refuse the dichotomous presuppositions of the modernist project, including the dichotomy of masculine/feminine and its role in identity ascription. The aim, then, of feminist epistemology is both the eradication of epistemology as a going concern with issues of truth, rationality, and knowledge and the undermining of gender categories.'
This is only one philosophical argument amongst many and it comes with its critics. I am not in a position where I can comment fruitfully on either the philosophy or the politics of it.
I will leave it there, thanks.
Quoting Amity
That wasn't the conclusion. And you are free to replace that article with any example you can think of when people pursued philosophy for political motivations. There was no point, the link was for illustrative purposes.
Right, but you seem to suggest that the "sound person" never gets outside this condition?
But then it seems that if the "sound people" claim that they have found a "better" (more good) way of dealing with this situation they will have to claim to know something of goodness and what is better. If they're opinions are of equal merit with everyone else's then why would it be profitable to listen to them?
Ok, so suppose Socrates convinces Glaucon that the Good is such and such and that it is better to be just, but to be seen as unjust, rather than to be unjust but seen as just. His myth has successfully changed Glaucon's mind. This leaves the question: "why is it good for Glaucon to believe what Socrates' wants him to believe?" If Socrates is ignorant of the Good, why should it benefit Glaucon to be influenced by Socrates' myths?
It's not clear to me that it does. If Socrates, in his ignorance, is wrong about the Good, then it seems he might simply be harming Glaucon by convincing him to follow Socrates into his particular brand of ignorance.
And, in my opinion, the best philosophy changes the way you read. For reading can be active form of thinking.
I don't know how easy it is to separate these. Locke for instance is probably motivated in his rejection of innate ideas and the Cambridge Platonists by political concerns.
Likewise, the idea that "x is social constructed," in turn means "x is arbitrary and could potentially take any other form we can imagine for it," seems to flow from a particular notion of freedom as indeterminate potency. Politics is always lurking here on the fringes.
Plus, "philosophical bias," can be just as totalizing. Russell obviously had his greater "project" in mind when he made his arguments against causation. In some cases, his arguments look fairly polemical and spurious in retrospect, the "project" driving the analysis.
I agree with that too!
Often I find myself in a kind of dialogue with the ideas, and sometimes the ideas are very confusing at first but then when it clicks the text changes -- Nietzsche reads like this, though I'm thinking that the aphoristic or poetic writers probably have an advantage here (or disadvantage, as preference may dictate).
But that's still a real pleasure when a text teaches you a different way to read that also opens up the text to a deeper understanding.
If you mean never attains transcendent knowledge then yes, that is what I am suggesting. But I won't insist upon it.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
They may think that some way or ways of dealing with our ignorance are better than others, but they do not mistake this for knowledge of what they do not know.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I have not said and do not think that all opinions are of equal merit.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
If you agree that not all opinions are of equal value then you must without knowing either accept one as not an opinion but the truth, or you must deliberate and discuss various opinions in order to decide which opinion seems to be best. In both cases we are starting from a position of ignorance, or do you think you do know?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
What is his particular brand of ignorance? In what way do you think it might be harming Glaucon?
First time hearing that.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Easy, in many cases. Someone's aversion to Buddhism or Berkeley may have to do with a materialist bias no politics here. Now, developing an ethical theory for the explicit purpose of legitimising abortion or whatnot...
I often stress the idea of active reading, which is often met with blank stares.
Quoting Moliere
Yup.
Quoting Moliere
It is also a pleasure when you go back years later and find all kinds of new things.
Actually I went back and re-wrote that passage, it was the opposite of what I had meant to say. I meant to say there's a strong tension between traditional philosophy and modern culture (hence I added the word 'suspicion'.)
Quoting Amity
It's a very tricky issue. I went to University with a convinced proponent of 'the traditionalists' who introduced me to them, including René Guenon and Frithjof Schuon. Guenon was a Frenchman who migrated to Egypt and wrote on esoteric and Eastern philosophy, his Wiki entry was here. I was quite favourably disposed towards him, but when I heard that Steve Bannon was quoting him I was appalled, as I despise his form of 'conservatism' (if indeed that is what it is). I've done some more reading and changed my view a little - there's a good scholarly book on 'the perennialists' called Against the Modern World, Mark Sedgewick. It makes their antagonism towards modernity and liberalism pretty clear. Nevertheless I think they're worth knowing about - I heard Bernardo Kastrup railing against them recently, that they're a cult movement with no scholarly integrity, but I don't agree with that, either.
In any case, they're hardly the only ones who are 'against modernity'. There are many critiques of post-Enlightenment philosophy, including some from the New Left (see the Critique of Instrumental Reason). Although I'm an advocate for science, economic progress and political liberalism, I also think it has a dark side which needs to be called out, as we're so deeply embedded in it that we're not aware of it. That's why, even despite that misogyny and autocratic tendencies in Plato, his criticisms remain significant.
Ah. Yet another case of being wrong-footed. There is a pattern to the discussion. It is valuable to observe and learn from it. Use of only certain aspects of an analogy or single quotes from a substantive philosophical article to illustrate a personal point of view is weak and unconvincing. Now it seems that the link was used to show that some people, sometimes pursue philosophy for political motivations. That much is clear but it is not evidently the case in the article.
Quoting Lionino
I agree with the Count. It is not always easy to separate the different prejudices. He provided useful and examples to illustrate. I think it can be difficult to see or pinpoint the main aim/motivation in a person trying to persuade an audience of a particular viewpoint. Especially, when it might be hidden by muddying waters, unclear language, fallacious reasoning.
As humans, it is inevitable that we have all kinds of bias - philosophical, political, personal, to name a few. Philosophy can raise awareness of these and identify where they might not be helpful.
Quoting What is Philosophy? - York University
There will no doubt be political elements within academia. From top to bottom. Preferences in approaches. Different interpretations of readings. But that is part of the process of learning. To read, reflect and challenge with questions. Communicating clearly and as honestly as possible.
I don't know, I would imagine that feminist epistemology of all things would work as an example. But otherwise, I hope she sees this!
Quoting Amity
Really? Not even in the example I provided?
Yes, it is appalling and Bannon is dangerous. As is our own Farage, leader of Reform UK which is not a party as such but a company of which he is director and majority shareholder. How is that allowed?
Quoting The Independent - Why Nigel Farages Reform is a company and not a party - and what that means
He talks of a wider agenda. He has been likened to Hitler. He has all but taken over the Tories. He wants to topple newly elected Labour, as main opposition. He appeals to the same audience as Trump, using similar strategies. How might he be opposed by rational, philosophical argument? I don't think that will ever work. Different game and rules of engagement...
Quoting Wayfarer
How do you call out a darkness if you can't see it? I think that philosophers can improve the way they present their views and arguments to be more explicit and less vulnerable to being used or abused by dark manipulators. But perhaps it suits their purpose if words are ambiguous and open to different interpretations. A bigger audience is reached. As in the case of Plato. He appeals to many.
I am not sure what his specific political criticisms are. Or how any perceived 'tendencies' to misogyny or autocracy might be used by the current hard right contingent. @Fooloso4? Anyone?
Plato is tricky on the issue of 'reverence for the past' as a political form of life. In the Statesman, Chronos is shown running the course of the universe backwards in order to restore its virtue and then run forward again under the guidance of gods to maintain order. Nostalgia does not get much better than that.
But the rule of men means the party is over:
Quoting Plato, Statesman, 275a
That is close to the thinking of Rousseau invoking the Noble Savage.
On the other hand, Socrates is seen pulling the beards of powerful men, challenging the force of tradition until tradition served him a hemlock cocktail.
It helped place the dialogue in context - after Plato's Sophist on the same day - but I seemed to have missed the appearance of the Time God Chronos!
Quoting Paine
Other than a bit part Socrates watching a younger version of himself (Y Soc) being quizzed by a Stranger (philosopher). It didn't feel right and did make me nostalgic for the earlier more authentic Socrates. Although, Plato's play with the Face-to-Face made me smile...
Quoting Plato, Statesman, 257D
Your humour is appreciated too:
Quoting Paine
I am missing Socrates.
Unfortunately, I can't read as much as I would like and can't see me ever enjoying again the previous discussions we had - following Socrates. Nostalgic, huh?
Fooloso4 said it well in the OP:
Quoting Fooloso4
It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help?
Maybe, but imo not as much as being either an Epicurean philosopher or a Stoic philosopher ... or even being an absurdist (Zapffe/Camus-like) philosopher ... might help.
I am also nostalgic for both. I enjoyed our conversation.
I recently re-read the Sophist and was struck at how Plato expressed a kind of nostalgia in his writing of the dialogue. The literary device of the Stranger is a reflective view of previous work in many ways. I said something about that here. Another way it is shown is through comparison of Theaetetus and the Sophist. The same Theaetetus is being sharply tested in the first and gradually persuaded by the Stranger in the second. The dialogues also share very similar wording in some places that suggest a dialogue between the dialogues.
Quoting Amity
The allegory of the cave requires a region outside of it to work. This gives rise to many problems of how greater knowledge of the real relates to the making of images inside the cave. Parmenides pointed out several of them to the actual young Socrates long before the action of the Republic. (Plato screwing with our heads yet again). In any case, there is tension that comes with using the allegory that is greater than any particular explanation it provides.
The philosopher who returns to the cave does it to help the people living there. That connects to how Socrates said Athens was his city and he refused to leave it unless he could return to it. The Republic happened out of town. The theme of estrangement is woven into countless backgrounds in the Dialogues.
My personal interpretation of the 'city in words' is that it is not a plan or a constitution but a deed to Socrates' city. His claim to try and change it. And he did not leave it when he could have because that would have meant giving up his claim.
I hope I have not left chew marks on your ear lobes.
Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve?
Quoting 180 Proof
Do you mean that the good is "extinction" in the early Buddhist sense of nirvana? Or do you mean that the Good is not a being, and is also not being itself? Or something else?
I understand the Good to be being in the sense of flourishing, actualizing potential, and also care for others. When I say I don't know what the Good is I mean I don't know what its universal definition could bewhat is good, what constitutes flourishing, for me may not be so for another. But then there would presumably be some common elements in what is good for everyone, insofar as we are all human and thus social beings.
Quoting 180 Proof
:up: It's a tricky word indeed that "know"! But I think you point to something salient when you make the distinction between understanding and knowingwe all have our own understandings of what is good.
Consider people who get involved in cults?
Yes, that was my read of the response. I guess that sounds fair.
What I have observed is that a little bit of philosophy can mess with people'e thinking and relationships. You know the kinds of thing, the bumptious young men who think they are Nietzsche's heirs, the enervated Rorty acolytes who can't commit to anything at all. The elitist Platonists who... maybe I'll just leave that one there.
Seems to me that one's disposition is important here. I've never been drawn to philosophy (by this I mean deep reading/studying) But I am interested enough to want an overview of key themes and directions. And I certainly understand that we are all the product of philosophical presuppositions, but so what?
The idea of exploring what is the good or truth or the nature of wisdom seems pretty tedious to me and does not match how I experience life. Critical thinking takes care of these matters pragmatically. Perhaps what it comes down to is this - I am not trying to solve any mysteries of existence or engaged in a poetic quest for self-knowledge. Sorry, rant over.
Quoting Fooloso4
I'm not entirely sure what this quesion involves. Isn't human knowledge a story, or a series of interrelated, overlapping narratives? Can you say some more on this?
Terrible day for being literate.
Could they not learn from that experience? Perhaps in some cases to go down for a while is the only way to continue on the way up.
Quoting Tom Storm
I think studying philosophers excessively is a scholarly, and not so much a philosophical exercise. I mean I want to get an understanding of the whole tradition, and that task is enough to occupy considerable time, so I don't see much value in going down the Kantian or Hegelian rabbit-holes. With Plato and Aristotle, I think it is a bit different since they are doing "first philosophy" not elaborate system-building.
Anyway, the import of philosophy is only insofar as thinking about philosophical issues and the self0critiuqe that might enable, helps you to live better. Otherwise, it would just be a nerdy interest to pass your time with.
In interacting on here I am most interested in those who present their own ideas in their own words and not so much those who post lengthy excerpts from their favorite philosophers or who direct you to read some philosophical work or other.
Quoting Tom Storm
You strike me as someone who is vitally interested in self-knowledge or self-understanding, as well as knowledge and understanding of others. I count that as doing philosophy, whether it be poetic, scholarly or not.
As a resident of MAGA world, I certainly hope so.
Thanks 180. Good to be with you again.
Of course, the first question I should have asked was 'What is a Socratic philosopher?' and what does it mean to be one? How does it benefit a person to adopt this philosophy? And yes, you mention others to which the same questions could be applied.
Then, what exactly did I mean by 'help' - why would I need it?
Perhaps I didn't need to spell it out. It is about anxiety and anger about how we got to where we are...with no apparent way out. It seems we have to go through a great deal of hellishness and deterioration of lives and services until rock bottom is reached. Before we can begin to climb out.
Regarding all the different kinds of philosophies - some are judged to be better than others. Is this more subjective than objective? Related to individual psychology and social background...already preferences and beliefs laid down. How to live life to make a person feel or be better, even when the consequences can't be foreseen. Life can be a bitch.
It's strange but when I read 'Socratic philosopher', I was thinking of Stoicism. I wouldn't say I am a 'Stoic philosopher' but I adopted the perspective. Summed up in a version of the Serenity prayer:
'Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.'
And then, there is the 'It is what it is' - almost a shrug and a giving in...or is it simply an acceptance.
Knowing enough to get by and then leaving it. Going for a walk and enjoying life and health when you can. Appreciating some interaction with others...returning to previous interests, to be raised from the dead...mixing it up. Using the brain cells...sharing stories.
Hope your story-telling is still going strong?
Very happy to have my brain tickled and my ears nibbled, thank you very much :smile:
It's great to read your thoughts and feel the energy of such passion. Quite inspiring!
Quoting Paine
I hadn't thought of this before. How intriguing...to connect the dots and note themes.
Quoting Paine
I wish I knew Plato better. To be able to share the kind of re-reading and relationship you enjoy.
I think that even in my limited reading I can see the interaction between dialogues. Again, thanks for pointing that out. I wonder what words he used so that you felt his nostalgia?
Yes hello! I hope you are well (or at least feeling better now that the Tories have been sacked). :flower:
I'm afraid not: the Muse has been gone for several months ...
:up: Sisyphus' amor fati.
:clap: Memento mori, ergo memento vivere.
I don't know. Help in what way?
From the Republic:
As it moves toward something, for example, the quest for certainty or linguistic analysis, it moves away from something vital to philosophy, the examined life.
The closing question relates to the opening question. Although it is not meant to close off but open up further consideration. What one expects from philosophy may determine how one thinks about the place of stories. I agree with you regarding narrative. The opening question is an invitation to narrative reflection.
That is a good question. The How along with What kind of help, Why the need for it. I tried to fill this out earlier and posed more questions. Perhaps you could help with the first couple?
Quoting Amity
I suppose then it is about help in travelling through life. Traversing the travails. The painful problems of politics and how individuals cope with the effects of unfair laws and hateful prejudice. Wars and weather.
Weathering the wars...
Is it about taking Socrates as a role model? Or the use of Socratic questioning?
https://www.learning-mind.com/socratic-questioning/
Oh yes, much better, thanks, and you? I despair of the American situation. And can only hope that Trump doesn't win again. It doesn't bear thinking about...
No! I don't believe that your creativity and imagination has dried up! I'm surprised that you haven't been scribbling away. Perhaps preparing for whatever Baden has in mind for the next 'Literary Activity'...?
Thanks for taking my thoughts and giving them a place in philosophy. Cheers! :flower:
As I understand it, a Socratic philosopher is one who knows he does not know and thus devotes her life to inquiry. Some hold to the assumption that to question is to deny, but it can be a mode of inquiry, an attempt to understand.
Quoting Amity
Wittgenstein said:
(Culture and Value)
I started a thread Wittgenstein the Socratic a few months ago. I do not think that Socrates was tormented by indeterminacy, but early on Wittgenstein was. He eventually came to see that the need for complete clarity was misguided.
Quoting Amity
I would not put it in those terms, but do think there are differences in character and @Tom Storm temperament that play a role.
Quoting Amity
Not so strange.
Quoting Amity
Maybe a role model for questioning. His single-minded devotion, however, could only be suited to someone who shares that devotion.
Quoting WHE
OK, thanks. There are different reasons for any attempt to understand, generally and specifically. Also, different methods in different fields. Questioning, discovering facts and information. People search to increase knowledge - to seek answers to problems. We build on what is known or unknown.
It is clear that this is not just a philosophical enterprise, far less exclusive to one specific type.
To question is also to challenge the status quo. Sometimes for the better, other times not so much.
'To devote a life to inquiry' - conjures up an almost religious obsession. It seems narrow and not quite what I was expecting.
Quoting Fooloso4
You can take someone as a role model and not be single-minded or share the same level of 'devotion'.
This sounds, again, like a religious worship. It can set up a situation whereby if people can't reach perfection or attain a certain level of success, then they feel they have failed. I think that is why some give up. Also, some with higher standards - who have perhaps devoted their life to it - can judge and dismiss them as unworthy with insufficient character.
I seem to remember questioning @Shawn who once described himself as a failed Stoic...
Quoting Fooloso4
This was the full quote which included the underlined. Quoting Amity
I find it interesting how people can read someone's thoughts/post and almost immediately relate it to their own philosophical interests and beliefs. The different responses from 180 and yourself being an example. Quoting Amity
180 - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916609
F4 - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916680
It can be heartening to feel understood and then to see that, of course, there is nothing original and such thoughts are widespread. There is no need to attach a certain label to yourself.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, I have read and understand the development of Stoicism. However, it has been some time and the strangeness was in how I read the word 'Socratic' as 'Stoic'. And interchangeable. Of course, they aren't.
It then made me wonder about Plato and if he could be described as Stoic.
I found an old thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2782/relationship-between-platonism-and-stoicism
Ending with this from @Ciceronianus:
Here, Socrates is a character in a play. Arguably, all literature is a reworking or re-imagining of life themes and stories. What is interesting are the reasons for recycling, re-forming. What spin of the author's beliefs and imagination adds something new and exciting to the mix. What is the aim and purpose of the works. Whose words are they? Second-hand Socrates? Who is the audience and how will they be persuaded by whatever message the author is attempting to convey.
Tragi-comedic plays and dialogue better, more attractive to some than dry scholastic argument?
It doesn't, but the thought haunts me.
Quoting Amity
Maybe that's because Stoicism is, putting it simplistically, the Socratic method applied covertly (or strategically) to practical / political life. 'Radically moderate' yet effective. Unapplied, however, elenchus is mostly therapeutic (e.g. (late) Wittgenstein).
That is true. Socrates does question in order to challenge.
In the interpretive tradition of the Midrash, questioning is a mode of understanding. This may come as a surprise to those who have been taught not to question scripture.
From Cicero:
(Tusculan Disputations, Book V, IV)
Some of the myths are probably Plato's own, but Socrates credits the ancients of different cultures. Some take themes, such as the afterlife and recollection, which Socrates says are hearsay., that is, things he has heard but has no first hand experience of. I think this relates to the question of who the audience is. The philosopher who desires the truth will not take these stories as true, but as part of her education they may be suitable.
That is an interesting question. It is easy when pointing at large mythological elements. I will have to think about it as related to more subtle themes. I am not trying to argue for that against other readings of the text.
Quoting Paine
After I asked the question, I thought it might not be in the words but the gaps between. Any silence. Or change in tone that you picked up on.
Perhaps it was simply the change of perspective; a different literary device and way to look at Socrates and his place in Plato.
Another interesting question is: What do you think Plato was nostalgic for? Has his life changed so much from the early days. As a student of Socrates. The arguments they might have had. What Socrates would think of the progress of his student and how he is being used. Even if it means that without Plato, his story might have been lost? Did Plato feel closer to the spirit of Socrates in the early dialogues?
I found an article which doesn't answer my questions but deals with nostalgia, images and words:
https://www.oxfordpublicphilosophy.com/two/plato-poetry-nostalgia
Quoting Plato, poetry, and nostalgia - Oxford public philosophy
The article addresses fascinating issues lightly and creatively. We fall into Lucy in Narnia. Then, Annie Dillards, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, the narrator greedily recites accounts given of and by patients who, having spent their lives blinded by cataracts, become suddenly sighted:
'Instead of a dazzle of colour patches she sees peaches. The colour patches seem lost forever. She mourns. I cannot unpeach the peaches.
It made me wonder more about Plato the man and the way he used his creative energies. Perhaps, the obsession with Socrates and political philosophy meant he denied his own poetry and self-expression. Creating stories of magic. But then again...priorities, priorities...promotion of philosophy.
The never-ending story...pathways and interpretations.
It was more than this. There was a special love and closeness...and a need to defend; to carry on and support ideas in new ways.
Also, grief and loss to be filled. I like to think so, anyway...but my imagination carries me away...
Well. I really don't know how to respond to this. It depends on what you mean by 'the philosopher'.
What variety? I don't think of myself as a 'philosopher' but someone who enjoys different aspects. Of? Yes, its stories. All concerning life as we know it, even if we can't grasp it all.
Any story can be an 'education'. A way to learn about self and others - we create our own and share.
As to 'suitability' who is the judge? It isn't always about a desire for truth, is it? I really don't find it easy to talk about the Big Truth or little truths as something to aim for.
Yes, thanks for the quote. Have you read all of the Tusculan Disputations?
I searched for the context and found this:
https://www.attalus.org/info/tusculan.html
'Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, written in 45 B.C., is a discussion of various topics that had been explored by Greek philosophers. It takes the form of conversations at Cicero's Tusculan villa.
The dialogue is split into five books, and links to the translation of each part of these books can be found in the following table:'
Easy to find Book 5. From section 4:
It continues:
Quoting Cicero - Tusculan Disputations,
I didn't read much more but can only wonder at this seeming continuation. Is it a form of nostalgia?
Distinguished, exclusive male followers of Socrates. In a different time and setting but still same old concerns? Would you have loved to have been there?
Perhaps so. I don't know. But I think Stoicism is not just one thing. It grew and split as so many do. Ideas transplanted into other fields like psychology and CBT. Therapy via logic and reasoning.
Just as Wittgenstein moved on. I haven't read much of him - don't know of any therapeutic effect.
Edit to add:
I've since scanned the Quietism article you linked to:
Quoting Wiki - Quietism
Perhaps philosophy is good at 'diagnosing confusing concepts' but not sure that this has liberated the mind. It seems any untanglements simply lead to more, no? Even adding to the problem...with different interpretations and neologisms...more 'isms'.
Thank you for the article. The play of tragic and comedic elements is important in Plato's work and life. I will try to address that later as I need to do chores soon. But I will say something quickly about the interesting idea of a denial of self-expression that Fraser brings forward.
The absence of Plato in the dialogues amongst people he lived with has a weird narrative effect. He is present throughout but hiding at the same time. In the Phaedo, the device is performed in front of us like a magic act. It is as if I handed you a photo album of my life events and you discover that I have used scissors to remove my image whenever I am in the shot.
Nostalgia must be involved but it does not give the Proustian vibe of 'remembrance of things past'.
Now to chores. My wife is asking for a greater display of practical reason over the theoretical for the coming week.
Sounds like she is applying the art and science of practical wisdom.
Not in any sense a 'nag' or jealous shrew as poor Xanthippe is sometimes depicted.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthippe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_approach
My point is, Amity, that 'rigorous conceptual clarification' (i.e. dialectics / therapy) is only a means and not the end (which is, imo, 'eudaimonic praxis') of Stoicism; thus, the Stoic philosopher reminds us, in part, of (Plato's early) Socrates. No doubt others will take issue with this sketchy interpretation; hopefully, however, the above is informative enough to point you in a fruitful direction.
NB: I do not consider myself a 'philosophical quietist / therapist' (even though I agree with Witty that philosophy is not theoretical (i.e. doesn't explain matters of fact) that, for me, it's only reflectively hermeneutic-pragmatic (Epicurus ... Spinoza ... Hume ... Peirce-Dewey ...)).
Thanks for this. I had just returned and edited my original request to be given a 'direction'. It seemed lazy of me. Our posts crossed and I'm glad you posted your thoughts. It is indeed informative and I will take time to read... hopefully to improve my understanding.
Quoting 180 Proof
OK...'only' that, huh?! Sounds good to me :cool: and quite the journey...
I mean the philosopher in the context of the education of the philosopher in the Republic.
Quoting Amity
I think Nietzsche points in the right direction:
He identifies three deadly truths:
(Nietzsche, Untimely Meditations)
These doctrines are the antithesis of what are often regarded as key Platonic doctrines based on immutable kinds or forms, which are key to the education of philosopher.
It is not simply that we do not always desire the truth, but that certain truths should be hidden, because they can be harmful.
That these truths are deadly may seem odd to us because:
No one dies of fatal truths nowadays: there are too many antidotes. (Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits)
That anything should remain hidden seems to us antithetical to free and open inquiry. But free and open inquiry is not value neutral. Plato's noble lies are not simply a political expedient. We have paid a price for "deadly truth". That what was long held out as the truth may not be the truth is a hard truth to accept. It can leave us rudderless.
On the question of the philosopher Nietzsche says:
(BGE 211)
Accordingly, most who study and write on philosophy are not philosophers. He reserves the title for the rare, exception individuals who shape and determine our lives.
Quoting Amity
Most of it I have not read.
Quoting Amity
I think the last line I quoted is important:
Thanks for the clarification and context of 'the philosopher'.
I really don't understand Nietzsche's identification of 3 truths, deadly or otherwise: Quoting Fooloso4
How is that pointing in the right direction?
You would need to spell this out before I might appreciate the difference. Otherwise I would need to read and I'm not tempted to read N. especially when he says this:
Quoting Fooloso4
The talk of 'real philosophers' suggests that is a 'truth' for him. It doesn't make sense to me and sounds provocative. However, it would be wrong and stupid of me to judge by only reading snippets of his thoughts.
I'm surprised that you haven't read all of the Disputations - where's your dedication, man? :wink:
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, I wondered at that. I'm aware that these politically and philosophically motivated men lived in dangerous times. They witnessed how Socrates paid the ultimate price. So many philosophers wrote in ways to hide their identity and been quite creative in keeping alive. Until...
Is that what you meant?
In the Republic the education of the philosopher consists of gymnastics and music. That music is in large part appropriate stories. This education does not include philosophy. That comes later for those few with the right temperament and maturity. The developmental stages do not include the quest for the truth. The "truth" as it is given moves from stories to mathematics, from what is told to them as true to what can be demonstrated as true.
Our relation to the truth has changed. This is reflected in your statement:
Quoting Amity
And so, your question:
Quoting Amity
is not so simple. Whether or not we might think the truth is or is not preferable, we do not have a choice, unless perhaps we live in a closed, sheltered society.
Quoting Amity
We might look at this in different ways. As a truth for him, this might be regarded as merely his perspective, no more or less true than others. But perspectives are for him of great importance and not to be dismissed simply as one way of seeing things rather than some alternative. Perspectivism is additive. Not a matter of either this one or that one, but of what can be gained from seeing things this way or that way or this way and that way.
We need to consider what he means when he says that real philosophers are commanders and law-givers and whether or not it is true. It is in this way not simply a truth for him. In order to test this we need to look at how certain thinkers and ideas have influenced the way we think, what we believe, and how we live.
In so far as he intends to influence the philosophers who come after him, we might regard this as the story he tells them. If they are to be philosophers, what are their responsibilities to others both now and in the future? If, to use Plato's imagery, they are to be puppet-masters and opinion makers, what stories are they to tell?
Quoting Amity
I have limited time and energy. I am not sure where I will spend it, but it probably will not with Cicero.
Quoting Amity
Yes. I don't think the need to hide, however, is for us at this moment something necessary, but that may change in the next few years.
I am the hysterical side of the partnership. The one who has to be talked down from quitting out of anger, getting into needless conflicts, or arrested. Still a work in progress. No complaints here.
Thanks for the insight into part of your life.
Use of the word 'hysterical' bothered me a little, given its medical history. In ancient Greece, hysteria (Hysterikos) was thought to be a woman's disease, related to the womb. Later (17th century) the emphasis moved to the brain and a disorder of the nervous system, also affecting men. Emotions became relevant; passions arising in the brain, not 'vapours'.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128017722000011
It occurred to me that if the aim of Plato/Socrates is for us to lead the best life, wellbeing clearly involves health, food and medicine, why is the focus more on concepts and character. What 'the philosopher' should be.
If we practise philosophy why would we need someone to talk us down or out of anger and its effects.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could take the heat out of America. What would it take?
[b]We need to do all we can to lower the anger pervading American politics
Robert Reich[/b]
Trumps messages to his followers during this election season has had a constant undercurrent of violence
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/17/trump-campaign-martyrdom
It's all very well diagnosing the problem, but where are the positive, political healers - words are empty without action. Where to start? With yourself? Change the diet?
Back to Socrates, then, and his last words. What did they mean?
Quoting Socrates last words - An ancient call for a healing ethos in civic life
@Fooloso4 - I think we discussed the meaning of Socrates last words in your thread?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1
Ah well, good questions. Stories. Isn't it all about mental manipulation? Some of the truth is hidden for the 'good of the people'. Some stories are never heard. Ears and eyes are closed and opened to suit.
Quoting Fooloso4
Are you talking about what we think is 'true' for ourselves? It is not always easy to follow the links of influence. Or even if we act according to our so-called beliefs. The truth is we can self-deceive quite readily without even being aware of it. Difficult to change perspective once fixed.
Quoting Fooloso4
Indeed. But it is happening now. It is frightening to consider the violence that can erupt. When even voicing an opinion contrary to a 'leader' or his mob can result in being called a traitor, criminalised or worse.
From page 12 of that thread:
I was referring to Nietzsche's claim about "real philosophers".
I have looked and have been unable to find an answer to my question: was Socrates literate? Greeks, as all humans before civilization, written language, etc., maintained continuity through epic story telling. Written words weren't required for thinking through and solving problems, and it seems most writing began as ledger keeping and literacy as we understand it had little to do with a successful life. Has this question of Socrates literacy been discussed anywhere? I haven't found anything definitive on it as a requirement for citizenship in Athens.
In the Phaedo he is putting some of Aesop's writings to verse. It is possible that he was working from memory from what he heard from others reading Aesop aloud, but there is no indication, as far as I am aware, that anyone else was writing down the verses he made for him.
Perhaps more importantly, he was literate in the sense of being able to discuss the writings of others.
In Phaedrus, Socrates demands to see the scroll Phaedrus is quoting from. The argument about the limits of the written word in that dialogue would be absurd if they were put in Socrates' mouth while Plato knew he was illiterate.
It would also render absurd the jokes made in Cratylus about etymology and the structure of written words if it concerned something Socrates had no actual part in.
Quoting isomorph
It seems you are applying a general idea to a specific time. The dramas and comedies Socrates (and Plato) were aware of were compositions written to be scripted performances. The talk of many authors of that time was directed toward regarding some as better than others. A performance of Oedipus Rex could be better than others. Just as we witness different attempts at Shakespeare.
But Socrates did not write those plays. Hearing them, remembering them and reciting them does not require reading and writing skills. This is evident in the predecessor to Attic writers - Homer. I'm old enough to remember (a very few old people) people who who couldn't read or write (at least not well) and were able to be successful because they could think problems through. My question arises because of the persistent caveat that is at the beginning of every conversation about Socrates: he didn't write anything. Onian discusses some of this about Homer's era in Origins of European Thought. By Socrates time, literacy might have been commonplace, but not ubiquitous, and it is not hard to imagine many intelligent successful people unable to write.
I have never questioned this. I had assumed he would be. And that the reason for his not writing anything down was a simple preference for engaging directly in dialogue.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. I wondered why it would be important for Socrates to be 'literate' in the sense of being able to read and write. I think there is a habit and preference for the real study of people. Personal, close up listening rather than reading; conversing rather than writing. Reading them, not just their words, along the way...
Quoting isomorph
Indeed. Plato wrote the Dialogues.
Quoting isomorph
That does seem to be the case. Apparently, writing is seen as 'an ambivalent new technology':
Quoting Litcharts - The Limits of Writing Theme in Phaedrus
Quoting Paine
Thanks for introducing Plato's Phaedrus to the discussion.
I think you might be interested in reading Plato's play from p46/51.
https://wyomingcatholic.edu/wp-content/uploads/Plato-Phaedrus.pdf
Quoting Plato-Phaedrus pdf
More thoughts and comments about Socrates/Plato and Writing. Unfortunately, this does not directly link to Phaedrus lines:
Quoting Engaging Text: Platos Assertions vs. Modern Technologies
What do you think of the thread so far?
How do you respond to the questions in the OP?:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Fooloso4
I'm puzzling over the word 'god'. @Fooloso4 @Paine and anyone else who is still around and interested: Why would the focus be on the best way to 'please god'? I'm not sure this is the best translation or interpretation? Any thoughts?
All of the threads by Fooloso4 are educational. I don't know that I expect anything from philosophy, it just seems to be what I do. At my stage in life I am a pessimist and I don't look for reason and purpose beyond association in this world.
Quoting Amity
You need to search for each writers' use of the word 'god'. It might mean 'nature', the 'cosmos' or an anthropomorphic entity as Xenophanes spoke of when he compared people and horses, etc. or a personal involved deity in some Christian sects. Spinoza equated god with nature. Heraclitus said, "the oneness of all wisdom may be found, or not, under the name of God."
Well, there's probably good reason or cause to be a pessimist. What do you mean by 'association'?
Quoting isomorph
Really? My question is specific to the writing of Plato in Phaedrus. The word/s and questions he places in the mouth of Socrates. I know the word 'god' can be ambiguous and have different interpretations, according to beliefs. What 'god' is being spoken of here? The Writing God/dess?
Although I gave a link to: https://wyomingcatholic.edu/wp-content/uploads/Plato-Phaedrus.pdf
I can't see who the translator was.
Looking for easy-to-access online translations, this one seems good:
Quoting Plato's Phaedrus - David Horan's translation
What follows is one fabulous story of 'a' god. Not 'god'.
Fooloso4 could answer the for you specifically, but my reply would still apply. The word might be theos or daimon or some case of those words depending on context, however it's certainly not as settled a definition as that of modern analytical humans. Socrates had a goddess that spoke to him. I don't have a Greek copy of Phaedrus so I will leave that to Fooloso4.
Your reply very helpfully brought in other writers in different contexts concerning 'god' but that didn't apply to my specific question.
Quoting isomorph
Yes. I have previously read and understood that Socrates had a daimonion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimonion_(Socrates)
If that is who you are thinking of, it's not relevant here.
Quoting isomorph
I know or hope that Fooloso4 (or @Paine and any others) will reply in their good time to both of us :cool: and yes, your reply was good too. Thanks :smile: .
Quoting isomorph
Greek copy of Phaedrus:
https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg012.perseus-grc2:247/
Thank you for the link, but I have other rabbits I've been chasing for a while. thank you.
Ah. OK. I only provided the link because I thought you wanted a Greek copy. My mistake.
Who knows - perhaps some other readers might find it useful.
As well you should be! We should keep in mind that Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Much of what Plato has Socrates say in the dialogues reflects what was common opinion. We are not likely to find much that overtly goes against those beliefs.
Translators are not always careful to distinguish the terms 'gods', 'god' and 'a god'. Monotheistic assumptions seem to inform some translations as well as some readers' interpretation. The singular 'god' appears in a few places in the Phaedrus. One notable place:
Why is the singular used here surrounded by multiple uses of the plural? Perhaps this can be addressed in terms of the famous Socratic "what is X?" questions. "Properly understanding" God means to be able to say what god is. Apparently, this is, according to this passage, something we are unable to do.
Added: As with other 'what is' questions he is looking for what all that is called 'god' has in common and distinguishes it from all else.
So, when Socrates is talking with Phaedrus, he is appealing to 'god' from a shared perspective? Or is he pandering to him?
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, I can appreciate that some who can't see or believe other than their own 'g/God' will think differently re the meaning of 'soul', for example. Hence, the never-ending philosophising over Plato's Dialogues.
I don't really want to head in that direction.
Quoting Fooloso4
Thanks for this but I don't understand it. When I imagine any god, it is not in corporeal form but spirit.
Again, we have this whatever is 'pleasing (to) god' - so pick a god out of the many, and what do we get? A different result each time.
Re: writing to best please (a) god? Why is it important to please them and not ourselves?
Are they our masters and we their slaves? Are we not to master ourselves?
Live by learning...learn by living.
There are always questions. Easy to skip over. From one exchange alone:
Thoughts:
Is Socrates suggesting that if we discovered the truth for ourselves we would be less concerned with the 'preoccupations of humanity' - whatever they might be...
So, is it the gods we should depend on for truth - accepting theirs so that we can relax and get on with daily living - Religious belief sets us free?
Is Phaedrus saying that it is impossible that we would never be concerned with human concerns even if we discovered the truth, whatever that is...
Why would the ones who have gone before us know the truth. Oh, the truth of what happens after death? The meaning of life!? But weren't we talking about writing...and there would be different truths depending on the god in question?
Socrates didn't want to write anything down because it would not be the 'truth' - only a perspective at a given time. He didn't want to be tied to a particular truth or belief - but to be free to explore and discover more...about human concerns. Yes? A dislike of stasis? Or concern about a theory taking over from the practice? The practice of dialogue...in the market place?
Perhaps it is more to do with 'How' a god is, rather than 'What' [s]he[/s] it is?
(Can't seem to get away from the image of a Christian God :roll: )
To individual minds and life experience. What is the essence of any spirit we might imagine? I tend to think in terms of 'goodness'.
I can't help wondering about where music and poetry enter the picture when it comes to spirituality/god/
What makes music great?
In writing - some suffering from writer's block refer to missing their Muse.
So, a even atheist might consider creativity and imagination as 'god-like'? Relying on an external and internal voice?
We use the word 'muse' as someone's source of artistic inspiration. Where is the source? Is there any such thing? Is it helpful to blame a missing Muse? An excuse for mental laziness - a lack of self-mastery?
Quoting Muses - wiki
How many Muses? Are/were they all female?
So, spirituality/creativity (feminine?) v rationality/creativity (masculinity?) How long will it be before humans stop thinking that they are separate and one superior to the other?
Quoting Poem Verse - a harmonious fusion of divine melodies
I do not think it is from a shared perspective, but I don't think he was pandering. Socratic philosophy begins with an examination of opinions.
Quoting Amity
Well, the gods are, according to the text, not corporeal. When you say they are 'spirit' I don't know what that means. Are you introducing ideas of your own? Perhaps the problem is that corporal beings do not know what it is to be an incorporeal being.
Quoting Amity
Oh the impiety! Drink the hemlock. If the gods are in charge then it would be best to please them. There are, of course, many problems with this. The Euthyphro addresses the question of what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates puts being just above pleasing the gods or ourselves.
Quoting Amity
Socrates claims that the gods are good in every way (274a), but the poets' myths of the gods does not match this description. If we look at the whole of this paragraph it begins with "likeness to the truth". It is the person who knows the truth who is best equipped in every respect to discover the likenesses. One who knows the truth of the gods who is best equipped to give a true likeness. Without seeing or properly understanding god, however, (246c) mortal man cannot give a true likeness of the gods. We cannot depend on the gods for the truth. Nor can we depend on the claim that the gods are good in every way.
Which likenesses are we to accept as the truth? Or, are we to accept that every likeness is merely a likeness and as such is to a greater or lesser degree unlike the thing it is said to be a likeness of?
I suppose 'pander' was the wrong word, then! More of a stimulating mutual intercourse from different perspectives? One perhaps intellectually superior, a leader to the other but both learning?
Quoting Fooloso4
No. The idea of 'spirit' is out there already, you know that! The non-physical part of a person. Or how some might imagine a god. Immaterial magic. Yes, there is a difference in meaning there. And yes, we don't know what it is to be incorporeal but we have imagination and creativity. The problem is perhaps not in our knowing but in our wishing and seeking. Perhaps for some kind of harmony between body, mind and what some call 'spirit' or 'soul'.
Quoting Fooloso4
Indeed. And so, he pleased himself by being just.
Quoting Fooloso4
Exactly this. Actions speak louder than words.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't know about accepting 'truth' from a likeness. I don't even know what that would entail.
If we accept your suggestion about 'accepting' then where does that leave us...?
I do know that, and that is why I don't know what you mean. It is not a term with a single agreed upon meaning. It is used with regard to various concepts and mythologies.
Quoting Amity
Right. That is, as I understand it, what Socrates talk of likenesses is about. On the one hand is the question of the relation between the original and proposed image, on the other is the power of the image, of where it might take us.
Quoting Amity
Many take some mythology of god or gods as the truth, in some cases with a god being the purported source. They might even object to it being called an mythology.
Quoting Amity
I am not suggesting we accept any likeness as more than a likeness. Without knowledge of the gods we are not able to say that any likeness is like the thing it is said to be a likeness of, but we can consider whether a likeness is a good likeness in so far as where that likeness might take us. Whether it inspires us to be good and do good, to be just, to love. I think Socrates has something like this in mind when he says that the gods are good.