From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:26:36 GMT


I missed tpm for a while, but why  are there discussions on the nature of
the nation-state?


In article <1992Sep10.214702.18842@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>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.


 Now tpm bandwidth is wasted by discussing the relationship between 1984
 and Brezhnev's USSR!!!



>
>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!!!

 And now tpm bandwidth is wasted in what should be talk.philosophy.ancient
 or whatever. The conviction of Socrates! Plato's philosophy!! 

>
>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
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Is this a review of a grade B movie on ancient philosophers. ( The good guys
  are .....Plato and Socrates..., the bad guys are..)

>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.
>

 The trail of Socrates should discussed on talk.legal.issues.before.la.law!!

>On the contrary, t
he 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

Let's try to keep trp relevant to MIddle East!!

Ishay

P.S I might not be able to respond to attacks on my articles since I am in
MBA school now.