Agnostic.com

5 2

Has anyone read IF Stone’s “The Trial of Socrates?” Stone mines the original sources and concludes that Socrates was prosecuted and convicted for associating and teaching at least one prominent reactionary, and for holding anti-democratic/pro-oligarchic ideas. Stone concludes that the trail of Socrates left a stain forever on democracy. Do you agree? Is this text still relevant?

ArturoS 6 Apr 29
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

How long have you been an Atheist?

0

How long have you been an Atheist?

0

I have not read IF Stone's account, however I have read Plato's Apology and parts of Xenophon's Memorabilia, and they are still very relevant.

The biggest stain on Democracy is the horribly monetized mess called Democracy in the United States.

cava Level 7 Apr 30, 2018
1

According to Plato Socrates asked the youth to contemplate the notion of Justice itself, which the overarching society thought was destabilizing.
Hence it was drink the Hemlock or recant your question.

Right. He refused to recant. Athens was caught up in a horrible internecine war between oligarchs and democrats. Socrates was aligned with the former. That’s why he talked so much about philosopher-kings, Truth, etc. He didn’t leave a lot of room for democratic consensus.

@ArturoS The fact that Socrates was "aligned with the former" (Oligarchs), does not imply that is why he talked about the topics he talked about. Plato talked about Philosopher Kings in his republic, Socrates as I recall, talked about TERMS. Justice, Truth, Mercy and so forth. What do they mean, and based upon what they mean what does society mean by them, then "Does how our society applies these ideas enshrine or destroy the base idea?"

Just talking about those base ideas put them under scrutiny, where those in power did not want them.

True democracy winds up as mob rule, one human one vote.
The problem with that can be seen all over the net, ANY and EVERY opinion is held in equal esteem, when not all ARE equal. Some have actual evidetiary support and some are based on raw assertion.
The bigger problem with that is reactiviity.
What do you think America might have done on Sept 12th 2001, if we had True Democracy, nuked Saudi in a blind nationwide rage?

1

Making someone take poison for their ideas is obscene.

Martyrs never die.

[goo.gl]

To be fair, he was allowed to pick between exile and suicide.🙂 I agree that either punishment is inconsistent with freedom of expression, which was Stone’s point.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:69317
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.