FORMAL / LOGICAL SYSTEMS

SOCRATIC METHOD / SOCRATIC THOUGHT

Socrates, although little is remembered of him, has a majority in
the significance of ideas. His admirer, Plato, virtually invented
ideas. That suggests a potency that is super-ordinary, as his place
in Plato's life was very singular on that subject.

Socrates asked large questions, and made use of the strategy of
deep implication.

For example,
metaphysics was an analysis. That is a Socratic
statement.

This could be developed (if one had the mind to do so) into a deep
implication:

metaphysics was an analysis --->
The question of the universal world --->
Maybe the world isn't universal.

This is already the Copernican revolution.

However, notice how this thought, easily managed by Socrates,
suggests a total eclipse of prior beliefs.

Analogize, and
nature becomes naturalism (another Socratic
thought), but this is merely supplementary, because
the idea is
had by Socrates
. This would be considered fundamental for
understanding.

The universe or concept of a larger world would in the sense of
these prior aspects be considered as a possible one-to-one
analysis, which could in turn be considered as a metaphor, or
again metaphysics, or some other
new idea emerging from the old
---another Socratic idea similar to dialectical materialism and
evolution.

As Socrates is presumed to have jumped into each topic
independently, as though he were a different person, he was in
fact the same person, the best philosophical person.

If there is something missing, it is the failure of other people to
preserve his complete influence.

An additional Socratic pursuit:

Every assumption is wrong in some way.

We act creatively to interpret any one thing --- then we are
somewhere else!

That location has NO location!

That second location is the real location, the location called NO
LOCATION.

I can argue that when we understand everything, we understand
NOTHING.

Everything is nothing, in that second location.

However, right HERE, where we ARE, there IS NO TRUTH.

We cannot KNOW unless we GO THERE.

THERE IS NOWHERE!

[Divinatory note: but think of it as an acronym. Focus on the first
part first, and the last part last----].


ADDITIONALLY,

WHAT IS JUSTICE FOR SOCRATES?

I don't know.

But, I have written something fairly significant on Socrates (at
least I think so).

Based on my writing, I can attempt to surmise the following:
1.Socrates' first view might be the premise that Justice is from
the gods.
2.Socrates would then argue that if the gods are just, so be it.
3.Socrates might then argue that only one of the gods is named
Justice.
4.Socrates might then make an expostulation about how divine
justice might be different from justice for mortals.
5.At this point it explodes into a lot of different questions, like 'is
Justice absolute?' 'Does Justice rule over mortals?' and 'Does
Justice rule justly?' The conclusion leads back to answering the
question of whether divine justice is different than justice for
mortals.
6.Socrates now raises the question of 'What is justice for
mortals?' Since we cannot know divine justice, we must concern
ourselves with justice of this kind.
7.Justice for mortals must be some relative kind of justice. It is
not justice at all, but an appearance of justice.
8.If justice is the appearance of justice then we must concern
ourselves with the good life, for the good life is all that has the
appearance of justice.

That's my sense of it.

FURTHER RECONSTRUCTIONS

SOCRATES, ON ETHICS


Something true might even be more than true.

If it is true in comparison to some lesser thing.

It might even be less than true.

If it is true in relation to some greater thing.

But if it’s true, we can say

“Then it’s true through and through.”


And it may even be that what makes something truly good  is just
that it is good, and nothing more.

For what could make something truly good except that it is good?

Unfortunately, what makes something true in this sense is just
that it is good.

Thus, some things are true but not good, and they are not truly
good.

And some things are good that are still true, although if they were
bad, they would not be true.

This, unfortunately, is true.


This brings us to the question of WHAT IS JUSTICE FOR
SOCRATES?

I don't know.

But, although I have written nothing on the matter, I think I have
judged a fair significance.

What I think is the following:

First, Justice is from the gods. No one can dispute that.

If the gods are just, so be it. That stands fair.

However, whatever you believe, there can only be one god named
Justice.

It is true that divine justice might be different in various manners
from justice in the way mortals see it.

There are many different questions, such as

'is Justice absolute?'
'Does Justice rule over mortals?' and
'Does Justice rule justly?'

And we can address these questions in their own manner,

But it always leads to the following,

Back to the question of whether divine justice is different than
justice for mortals.

Now there is the question of 'What is justice for mortals?' after
all.

Since we cannot know divine justice absolutely (not being
absolute in judgment like her ourselves), we must concern
ourselves with justice of this kind. The justice of not being Just. A
lesser justice.

Justice of this kind (justice for mortals) must be some weak kind
of justice. It is not really justice at all, but some mere appearance
of justice.

If justice is ‘just’ the appearance of justice then we must concern
ourselves with the good life, for the good life is all that has the
appearance of justice.

If anyone would like to speak on my earlier questions, now is
always the time to hear it.




SOCRATES, THE APORETIC METHOD


Just because you see that you know doesn’t mean that you know
that you know.

Just because you see that you know everything doesn’t mean that
you actually know anything.

Just because you make an effort to know does not mean that you
succeed in the process of knowing.

Just because you have reached certainty of knowledge does not
mean that you have actual knowledge.


Thus, we begin with what we say that we know, which is what we
think that we know well.

We then inquire into the process of knowing, which is the thing
that we might endeavor to know.

Then we inquire into what we think we see, which is that thing
which we must know, if in fact we do know.

Finally, we must see as to whether we know it, and that is the
most challenging part.


In the end, very often we do not know, or there is some way that
we know, which is in fact the way that we do not know.

Thus, it may be said that the Sophists were wise, for although
they knew, they also knew that they knew not.

Thus, we may endeavor to know that we know not, for unless we
know that we are not wise, we cannot know that we are wise.

This in all things: know thyself, and to thine own self be true.







             
BACK TO SYSTEMS