Who or What Won (Or Lost) World War II - For Real

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Originally posted by Scottomir
Implicit here is that, if Socrates had died at Delium, the world would have lost his philosophical genius. (And this very question is the first chapter in "What If? 2"!) Of course, this begs the question of how much of what we know about Socrates' philosophy actually comes from Socrates...and how much of it is Plato's invention. There isn't a single scrap ever written by Socrates himself. Even Aristotle himself suggested that Plato had invented many of the dialogues for his own purposes. So if Socrates had died, maybe Plato just would have found another teacher and created similar philosophical dialogues anyway. I can't help but wonder how many Athenians wished Socrates had died at Delium, so that he wouldn't have rescued Alcibiades, who later caused their polis so much grief.

[/B]

Socrates never wrote anything, because according to what he may have thought in the Phaedrus, he criticized written and spoken dialogue. I've read most of Plato's works and most teachers nowadays assume Plato was simply using the name of Socrates out of convenience and to honor his teacher.

In any case, Plato was successfull not because his philosophical dialogues were so loved, it was because he was able to construct his Academia beyond the city limits of Athens. Isocrates was far more popular than Plato at the time, both of them were rivals and alot of Plato's works have subtle jibes at him.

Had Plato NOT been able to build his Academia beyond Athens city limits, it might have been destroyed by invading armies or sacked by mobs. His work could also have suffered the amount of corruption and rephrasing that Aristotle works have gone through.

Just a friendly nitpick...

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
most teachers nowadays assume Plato was simply using the name of Socrates out of convenience and to honor his teacher.

Isocrates was far more popular than Plato at the time, both of them were rivals and alot of Plato's works have subtle jibes at him.

Had Plato NOT been able to build his Academia beyond Athens city limits, it might have been destroyed by invading armies or sacked by mobs. His work could also have suffered the amount of corruption and rephrasing that Aristotle works have gone through.

I think most people who doubt the historicity of Plato's Socrates argue that Plato used the real Socrates as a model but put his own words and ideas in Socrates' mouth. However, many of Plato's readers would also have known the real Socrates, so Plato's words couldn't have been too out of line with the real fellow or else his contemporaries would have cried foul.

Indeed, Plato does seem to have a running feud with the Sophists. If the Sophists were more "popular", it was for their utilitarian view of knowledge and rhetoric. Plato, of course, held more objectivist views of truth, knowledge, and the substance of being. Ultimately, though, Plato was "successful" because his writings had longevity and were preserved over time, unlike most of his rivals.

I don't see what the location of the Academy provided beyond some insulation from the fickleness of Athenian politics. A repository was hardly safe outside city walls: most temples were far outside cities, and they got sacked left and right by the Gauls in the 200's BCE. I would counter that the Academy was important for producing written texts and scholars who carried them in the future.

I'm not familiar with your claims about the "corruption" of Aristotle's texts. Are you referring to the problems of translation over the centuries from Greek and Arabic? I know that some ancient Greek writings have survived into our time only in Arabic translations from the original Greek...is this what you were referring to, or is there another level of problems?