Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

And which real persons of today will later be accepted as fictional characters?

Ian wrote: "And which real persons of today will later be accepted as fictional characters?"

Indeed!

For example, I would love to know how people will think of Osama bin Laden in 6012. I think he'll generally be considered a myth, symbolizing and dramatizing the defeat of the (probably also mythic) American-Roman Empire.

That's a good example. Also in a few thousand years people might think that some aspects about real people--especially larger-than-life real people--must be ficitional historical embellishments. Take Franklin Roosevelt: he couldn't really have been a cripple, right? One of the leaders of the free world through one of the darkest times in history? No way he actually went around in a wheelchair.

Manny, this is a very poor performance by Russell. But he made more money from this than he ever did from Principia Mathematica. Stick to the logic.

How does it matter whether Plato made Socrates up or not? The character of Socrates changes in the course of the dialogues. The early dialogues show a much different character than the late dialogues. Pretty much everything we know about Socrates comes from Plate (with a few references in Aristophanes, and Xenophon). And that means that what we know of Socrates is almost, out of necessity, Plato's Socrates and nothing else. But so what?

Similarly, I contend that The Iliad wasn't written by Homer, but by another blind Greek around that time with the same name.

The Iliad was not written by Homer, but is the product of centuries of oral, traditioinal story-singing; see Albert Lord, Singer of Tales. Plato did not "make-up" Socrates, as there is abundant contemporaneous and independent evidence -- starting with Aristophanes, Aeschines, Xenophon (as you say), and Aristtotle who - though writing after Plato - certainly attests to Socrates' historicity, if nothing else. W.K.C. Guthrie's Socrates (= vol. III, part 2 of his Hist. Of Greek Philosophy) is a fairly reliable, very accessible guide to this and related questions.

As to the character and thought of the historical (as opposed to the Platonic or Xenophontic) Socrates, that is a more complicated question, though the right answer is likely that it cannot be determined and that neither Plato's nor Xenophon's is a true picture..., as each portrays a 'Socrates' of his own partial invention as a porte-parole of their own thought. This latter issue remains somewhat (though unnecessarily) controversial, but that of the paragraph above is not.

Hope this helps.

Well, I have wondered several times just what Russell meant, given that, as you say, Socrates is mentioned by Xenophon and some other people. Has anyone got a copy of the book handy and can look up his exact words? He was such a smart and well-informed person that I can't imagine him not having a response to these obvious objections...

I want to know what genius invented Manny Rayner. This is surely the elephant in the room which you are all pretending isn't there.

Ah, thank you Paul, it was kind of a team effort. We'll write it up some day.

Donna, that is such a cool story! What did you read with your other children, and what effects did it have?

Hm, so maybe doesn't qualify as a controlled experiment then, but some great anecdotes!

My younger son has also decided to become a chemist. He's recently learned to use a scanning tunneling microscope, and as a consequence we all know much more about that...

Socrates as Platonic Sock-puppet?! Why not?

If so, could he have been the first sock-puppet still known to historians? Are there any other candidates?

Manny wrote: "If so, could he have been the first sock-puppet still known to historians? Are there any other candidates?"

Probably, but what's now stuck in my mind is "would a Mediterranean culture (with warm/hot average temperatures year-round) have actually worn socks with their sandals?" If not, how would they know thing one about sock puppets? Maybe a Nordic influence...

Look, Mount Olympus is nearly 3000 meters high. It's cold enough up there to have snow most of the year. You're telling me people would climb it without socks?

Well, okay, Spartans perhaps, but weak, effete Athenians...

Manny wrote: "Look, Mount Olympus is nearly 3000 meters high. It's cold enough up there to have snow most of the year. You're telling me people would climb it without socks?

Well, okay, Spartans perhaps, but we..."

Point taken, although I think we should consult with a Classical Sockologist before publishing. I'll contact a colleague at the Sorbonne, Mr. Fantoche DeChaussette.

Oh yes, I've heard of him. The Red and the Green: Stendhal and Pippi LÃ¥ngstrump's Strumpor? Though I must admit I haven't read it.

this is v disturbing line ! Historically Socrates was not proven to exist ?!!!!!!

I think Russell was just teasing us...

lol , ya that would be a nice way to be comfortable with this line :D

Funny. The throwaway remark appears in the text so close to Lord Russell's explication of Parminides'doctrine. "The true statement is ' Shakespeare says the was a Prince of Denmark called Hamlet".

Russell's remark wasn't intended to cast doubt on the historicity of Socrates, but concerns the question whether or not the *Platonic Socrates* - Socrates as he appears in Plato's works - is intended to be an accurate portrayal of Socrates, or is simply a fictional character *named after* Socrates to make a point. In Russell's own words:

"... it is very hard to judge how far Plato means to portray the historical Socrates, and how far he intends the person called 'Socrates' in his dialogues to be merely the mouthpiece of his own opinions."

Because the Platonic Socrates is so plausible and lifelike, it is generally believed Plato is describing the historical Socrates. However, Russell says, Plato is not only a philosopher, but also "an imaginative writer of great genius and charm." He adds the throwaway remark you cite above:

"His Socrates is a consistent and extraordinarily interesting character, far beyond the power of most men to invent; but I think Plato could have invented him."

Meaning no more than: if Plato was a lesser writer, who *couldn't* have imagined Platonic Socrates, this wouldn't be a question at all. Or, in Russell's own words:

"It is the excellence of Plato as a writer of fiction that throws doubt on him as a historian."

Xenophonen's Socrates has little in common with Plato's.

Though both use the Socratic method.

I just crossed over that part a couple of weeks ago. Pik is right on the money. Afterwards, Russell uses Socrates and Plato as two different proper names which seems to suggest he believes they were two separate physical people as well.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this! What no one knows any more is the extent to which the real Socrates resembled Plato's and Xenophon's versions.

I consider him fictional to the extent he is represented in the dialogues, at least. I just love the idea of this guy walking around Ancient Greece and annoying the shit out of everybody.

Me too! One of my all-time favourite characters, whether he existed or not.

Several others wrote about Socrates (Xenophon and Aristophanes were two). Point well taken, tho, about the slip between reality and fantasy (or maybe as CW Mills said, between history and biography).

The Socrates that Aristophanes describes seems quite different from the one in Plato, but they are close enough that you presume there has to be a common origin. Beyond that, who knows?

Reminds me of Fernando Pessoa who at a certain point in time flirted with the idea of becoming not Portugals most acclaimed author, but auhors! (conquering Lisbon with his army of litterary heteronyms)

thanks mannny .

You're welcome, jordan!

which book should we pick after completing this, Russel ends with Jhon dewy ..
which is the better book for covering an overall 20th century

I don't know of anything that is a clear continuation. The closest thing I can think of is Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature . It's still pretty different, but Rorty is also encyclopedic in knowing a wide range of philosophers and being happy to express opinions on them.

Manny wrote: "I don't know of anything that is a clear continuation. The closest thing I can think of is Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature . It's still pretty different, but Rorty is also encyclopedic ..."

After reading your review , I am intimidated for rorty .seems like a solid book

It's actually a lot of fun. You don't have to understand everything to enjoy it - I certainly didn't!

You imply the world isn't a Philip K. Dick novel; that's just what they want you to think...

Good point. I'll take a different color pill next time I'm given the choice.

Manny why only 3 stars? Do you recommend a better book on the history of philosophy

I'm not sure why I gave it only three stars! Probably because I read it a long time ago and can't remember as much of it as I would like...

What do you recommend?

I thought this book was kind of disappointing for a book written by Russell. His technical work is probably his best but when it came to writing for the public I think he’s a bit overrated, at least for today’s reader.

This review will haunt me forever now.

I cannot refrain from saying: if you want to be haunted more, my new book explores this idea in considerably greater detail!

21% of people think Sherlock Holmes was real



Imagine that. 79% of people are in error!

He never, ever doubted Socrates existence.
What he doubted was if Platos description of Socrates was realistic, sincere or somehow exaggerated.

You are right of course. I should have said "whether the Socrates described by Plato actually existed".

Read Conversations of Socrates by Xenophon

There is a certain degree of commonality in the portraits -- and substantial differences.

I don't know why I still haven't read Xenophon. You're right, I should do that!

Evidently, though, Russell would have been well aware of his account when he made his remarks here...

certainly Homer...

D'oh! As I'm told certain experts on ancient Greek like to put it.