I got a copy of The Trial and Execution of Socrates from a pen pal in England! Read book 1/3 and wanted to hear more about it. Great video, excited for more!
Excellent work again! One question I was wondering about - there's a pretty simple argument to be made that virtuous men are not to fear death (Socrates (i.e. Plato) is a virtue ethicist, so the good man to Socrates is virtuous; Socrates says the good man does not fear death; QED the virtuous man does not fear death). If that's the case, could it be argued that his argument on death is also sort of proof-of-concept to the supremacy of the virtues? Competing ethical theories would be non-virtuous and thus possibly death-fearing. To be virtuous lifts oneself from the fear of death, and thus *must* be the most desirable ethical theory to adhere to if one wishes to free oneself from mundane problems or concerns. Possibly circumstantial evidence, but the fact Socrates argues in Apology to a jury, i.e. people who are required to have no knowledge or commitment to either the prosecution or defense, might lend support to this. Socrates talks to friends and/or intellectuals in the majority of Plato's other works who are expected to be well-versed in these sorts of ideas. Perhaps he's taking a different approach, demonstrating a practical utility as opposed to a epistemic one?
Thank you for great comment and question! If I understand what you are saying correctly it is a question of if the following is accurate: Socrates takes the fear of death to be such a disadvantage that the best ethical system is the one that could do away with the fear of death, which his ethical theory, his supremacy of the virtues, could do. I believe this Socrates would agree that it is "no use for the good man to fear death." However, in my understanding, his reasoning seems to go in the other direction. The above would suggest that it is one’s lack of a fear of death that makes them virtuous, “the good man does not fear death.” Thus, one cause of virtue is to not fear death and the second premise may be restated by this understanding, “if one does not fear death, then they are a good man.” But I take Socrates here to suggest it the other way around, to suggest that it is one’s virtue that may make them lack the fear of death. Thus, one cause of the lack of a fear of death is virtue and the second premise, I believe, may be restated by this understanding, “if one is a good man, he need not fear death.” I think this Socrates would take the unvirtuous man who does not fear death to be a fool. In the case of an afterlife, Socrates believes the unvirtuous man will likely be greatly harmed. This is why the shift of his audience from the entire jury to just his “friends” is crucial. Only the virtuous should not fear death. Of course, there is a component of his philosophy whereby the virtuous man may be virtuous because he does not fear death. The one who fears death is more likely to commit injustice in order to keep his life. Thus, the fear of death makes being virtuous more difficult. If, however, one is to stay committed to virtue even with the fear of death, they will be equally good to the one who was committed to virtue without the fear of death. Hence why Socrates states that his commitment is not to life or death but the the good and just. Hopefully this makes sense and thanks for the question!
Hi friend !! Thanks for your great valuable videos !!! I have a very important question i keep asking all the time !! Why universities always degrade and exclude Neoplatonism and pythagoreanism from their curriculum ?! Yes some teach basics but it's mostly ignored even on mainstream "Philosophy" channels are ignoring Neoplatonism and it's great philosophers Plotinus ,Porphyry , Iamblichus , Proclus and pseudo-dionysius the areopagite. Even renaissance neoplatonists are ignored like Gemistos Pletho and Marsilio Ficino ?! I guess because all these philosophers are spiritual philosophers , which in our materialistic age are of no value as most of their works are in the realm of Metaphysics! Can you give me your opinion on this matter ?!
Thanks for the kind words! That's an interesting question. I can't say that I'm too familiar with the philosophers you mention, except Plotinus and Porphyry from a metaphysics textbook. Admitting that is probably further evidence of the exclusion of these thinkers. I'm unsure of the particular reason, and your suspicion may well be right. Although, I imagine that there are professors and philosophy channels (or podcasts) that focus on them or at least write and talk about them. Either way, I hope you can still find means to studying them!
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
I got a copy of The Trial and Execution of Socrates from a pen pal in England! Read book 1/3 and wanted to hear more about it. Great video, excited for more!
The among us part was hilarious😂😂 love it
Very interesting channel. Keep up the good content.
Thanks! I like your stuff too!
Excellent work again! One question I was wondering about - there's a pretty simple argument to be made that virtuous men are not to fear death (Socrates (i.e. Plato) is a virtue ethicist, so the good man to Socrates is virtuous; Socrates says the good man does not fear death; QED the virtuous man does not fear death). If that's the case, could it be argued that his argument on death is also sort of proof-of-concept to the supremacy of the virtues? Competing ethical theories would be non-virtuous and thus possibly death-fearing. To be virtuous lifts oneself from the fear of death, and thus *must* be the most desirable ethical theory to adhere to if one wishes to free oneself from mundane problems or concerns.
Possibly circumstantial evidence, but the fact Socrates argues in Apology to a jury, i.e. people who are required to have no knowledge or commitment to either the prosecution or defense, might lend support to this. Socrates talks to friends and/or intellectuals in the majority of Plato's other works who are expected to be well-versed in these sorts of ideas. Perhaps he's taking a different approach, demonstrating a practical utility as opposed to a epistemic one?
Thank you for great comment and question! If I understand what you are saying correctly it is a question of if the following is accurate: Socrates takes the fear of death to be such a disadvantage that the best ethical system is the one that could do away with the fear of death, which his ethical theory, his supremacy of the virtues, could do.
I believe this Socrates would agree that it is "no use for the good man to fear death." However, in my understanding, his reasoning seems to go in the other direction. The above would suggest that it is one’s lack of a fear of death that makes them virtuous, “the good man does not fear death.” Thus, one cause of virtue is to not fear death and the second premise may be restated by this understanding, “if one does not fear death, then they are a good man.” But I take Socrates here to suggest it the other way around, to suggest that it is one’s virtue that may make them lack the fear of death. Thus, one cause of the lack of a fear of death is virtue and the second premise, I believe, may be restated by this understanding, “if one is a good man, he need not fear death.”
I think this Socrates would take the unvirtuous man who does not fear death to be a fool. In the case of an afterlife, Socrates believes the unvirtuous man will likely be greatly harmed. This is why the shift of his audience from the entire jury to just his “friends” is crucial. Only the virtuous should not fear death.
Of course, there is a component of his philosophy whereby the virtuous man may be virtuous because he does not fear death. The one who fears death is more likely to commit injustice in order to keep his life. Thus, the fear of death makes being virtuous more difficult. If, however, one is to stay committed to virtue even with the fear of death, they will be equally good to the one who was committed to virtue without the fear of death. Hence why Socrates states that his commitment is not to life or death but the the good and just. Hopefully this makes sense and thanks for the question!
I enjoyed very much and I'm very interested in knowing more about it, thank you
❤❤
Socrates: "If you kill me, I win. If I live, I win. In both scenarios you loose."
Nah I'd win - Socrates
Bro…. This video, though VERY informative, had me falling asleep. Your voice is like an audio quaalude Give us just a pinch of pizazz would ya lol
Good vid. Definitely have a crack a the Phaedo.
Hi friend !! Thanks for your great valuable videos !!! I have a very important question i keep asking all the time !! Why universities always degrade and exclude Neoplatonism and pythagoreanism from their curriculum ?! Yes some teach basics but it's mostly ignored even on mainstream "Philosophy" channels are ignoring Neoplatonism and it's great philosophers Plotinus ,Porphyry , Iamblichus , Proclus and pseudo-dionysius the areopagite. Even renaissance neoplatonists are ignored like Gemistos Pletho and Marsilio Ficino ?! I guess because all these philosophers are spiritual philosophers , which in our materialistic age are of no value as most of their works are in the realm of Metaphysics! Can you give me your opinion on this matter ?!
Thanks for the kind words! That's an interesting question. I can't say that I'm too familiar with the philosophers you mention, except Plotinus and Porphyry from a metaphysics textbook. Admitting that is probably further evidence of the exclusion of these thinkers. I'm unsure of the particular reason, and your suspicion may well be right. Although, I imagine that there are professors and philosophy channels (or podcasts) that focus on them or at least write and talk about them. Either way, I hope you can still find means to studying them!
Great video brother thank you
Socrates was sus