From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:47:02 GMT

In article <95618@bu.edu>, gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis) writes:

|>In article <1992Sep8.235635.708@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>>The claim that any culture has the right to raise itself to the status of
|>law
|>>is completely false. That has been the root of political oppression since 
|>>Soccrates was executed for opposing the cultural values of the state. There 
|>>are no nations and there are no states, only individuals.
|>
|>First Phill puts his foot in his mouth ascribing charisma to Brezhnev (well,
|>to
|>be fair, he did not say that - he simply made a more sweeping statement that
|>a
|>comunist dictatorship cannot survive without a charismatic leader). 

Err excuse me Einstein but exactly where is the USSR these days eh?

I do not recall saying that a communist dictatorship would fall apart overnight
the minute that the person at the helm was a zero.

In any case the leadership of Breshnev was in a sense predicted by George
Orwell, remember that Big Brother was the all pervading figure that appeared on
every street, his speeches in every paper etc, yet the man himself was
"probably" long dead. The man was dead but the icon continued. Breshnev was in
fact clinicaly dead for the last four years of his office. It was this period
that the rot really set in, the path that the Soviet Union had to tak was set
long before Gorbachev came to power, however dismantling such a state takes an
immense amount of time.


|>Now, he
|>decided to lecture us on something further back in history. He even ventures
|>into philosophy. Alas, the results are the same: Socrates was convicted
|>exactly
|>for affirming the cultural values of the state.

THINK ABOUT THIS STATEMENT! THINK! USE THAT BRAIN!!!

You have just written that the guy was executed for affirming the values of the
STATE. Try to consider the likeliness of this happening, you are making the
claim that the guy was executed for being a good citizen!

Don't you think that you should try to engage a bit of scepticism when you read
books by politicians? Consider Platos career, tutor to princes, adviser to
kings, he is a *very* powerful court official. He gets the cash, and more
importantly the political backing to start academies. 

I'm not saying that Plato and Socrates wern't the good guys, they were pretty
smart though and smart philosophers can't help but be cynical.

|> In his last speech he tells his
|>judges quite explicitely that it is they, the citizens of the great Athens,
|>who
|>have fallen short of their state's cultural value. And he argues logically
|>that
|>according to the state's values he should not be punished - rather he should
|>receive the highest of awards. 

Yes a lot of people make statements at trials. However read the Phaedo
carefully, it is quite apparent that Plato is making the claim that these are
the greatest ideals of the Athenian state. Plato is not a neutral figure in
these proceedings he is a propagandist and he is making a poltical case. He is
making the claim that learning is the highest ideal of Athenian society, this
cannot be something that Plato beleives since he condems the Athenians for their
narrow mindedness in putting Socrates to death, the statement is therefore
either one of two things, it is either applicable to some notional "ideal"
Athenian state or it is a statement made in order to promote the idea of
learning *as* an ideal of the Athenian state.


|>If he indeed opposed the cultural values of
|>Athens his charges would not be nearly as lame as those he faced. In fact,
|>Socrates himself aspired nothing more than uphold these values. But this
|>discussion is getting a bit too philosophical. And btw, the passage I quoted
|>from Phill had nothing to do with its context, imho.

On the contrary, the trial was no more than a judicial lynching, that is plain
enough. 
The charges of "corrupting youth" are plainly a charge of seddition and the
sentence of death makes no sense in any other context. At the time of the trial
Socrates and co were about as popular as the average Hari Krishna cult and about
as respectable.
 
Read the republic and consider Socrates views, he is not a cultural
conservative. I forget if it is he who initialy suggests that eugenic breeding
practices should be instituted but he certainly had some "unconventional" views
on the subject.


|>Phill, I suggest you stick to the merkier topics (abundant in this group)
|>where
|>it is not quite as glaringly obvious where your foot resides most of the
|>time.

One of the great lessons of USEnet, never call someone stupid or ignorant unless
they stoop to using insults, otherwise you are likely to find yourself either
making a retraction or looking stupid.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker