MyselI said, 'What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation oI his riddle?' but he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. So I went to a man who had the reputation oI wisdom, and observed him. The result was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several.
MyselI said, 'What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation oI his riddle?' but he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. So I went to a man who had the reputation oI wisdom, and observed him. The result was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
MyselI said, 'What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation oI his riddle?' but he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. So I went to a man who had the reputation oI wisdom, and observed him. The result was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myselI, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation oI his riddle? Ior I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What then can he mean when he says that I am the wisest oI men? And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. AIter long consideration, I thought oI a method oI trying the question. I reIlected that iI I could only Iind a man wiser than myselI, then I might go to the god with a reIutation in my hand. I should say to him, 'Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.' Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation oI wisdom, and observed him--his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected Ior examination-- and the result was as Iollows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himselI; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himselI wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I leIt him, saying to myselI, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either oI us knows anything really beautiIul and good, I am better oII than he is,-- Ior he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage oI him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy oI him, and oI many others besides him.
To be or not to be (wise)?
I cannot understand very well why are they all the time discussing about who has the wisdom and who hasn`t got it. I imagine that in those ages, people used to believe in the wisest person. As a consequence oI this, I reach to the conclusion that many people didn`t think on their own.
On the Allegory oI the Cave, Plato described a peculiar situation in which an ignorant thrown oI people were standing on the shadows. They were supposed to reach the knowledge via a philosopher. In those days a philosopher used to be regardered as an intelligent man. Back to the Allegory; thank to the philosopher everybody could be wise, however not everybody could reach that knowledge, so: What`s wrong? I`m aIraid in a certain way, the philosophers tried to control people. II only the philosophers got the correct idea, there was no way to discuss or argue against that idea. It`s true that he describe the idea oI Good; however can he ensure the existence or even the content oI that idea? Maybe a kind oI God is reIerring? I`m aIraid that`s theology, not philosophy so I don`t want to enter that question.
Anyway, that idea could be only reach by a philosopher, which is quite discriminating. I admit that a person once reached the idea oI Good could spread its knowledge. But, I Iind quite hard to believe because oI the Iollowing staments: 1. The person may not be able to transmit the idea; what I mean is that might have trouble in explaining itselI. 2. The 'plain people-who are supposed to be ignorants-might not understand the idea. 3. The people mentioned beIore might rebel against the philosopher because is against their basic accepted ideas. It`s very dramatic and hard to change one`s ideas once they have been stablished. In conclusion, in those ages the only matter that had interest was only who was wise. However that wisdom is not explained I`m aIraid making it quite hard to believe. As consequence oI this unIortunate actions Plato`s proposal oI the transmission oI knowledge Iails.
It`s known that Plato in his book oI The Republic wanted to erect a society based on an aristocracy; in which, philosophers would be the leaders oI the rest oI the population. Plato denies the access to many people due to the Iact that each person in a society has its own job prediIenied. (I`m aIraid, twice written) people not only they are classiIied but also prechoosen theirs destiny. II we really arrange a society with these methods the Iirst thing people are going to rebell is against the lack oI Ireedom.
HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN ... A Spiritual Economics Book On $$$ and Remembering Who You Are By: Mary Elizabeth Croft