Was Socrates blissfull?

[Arjen]

The Oracle of Delphi told Socrates that of all men in Athens he was wisest. This must have come as a surprise to Socrates because he, as all you no doubt know, always declared: "I know that I know nothing" (and most likely he was not even sure of that).

People often say that "ignorance is bliss" and, in a way, I agree with those people. Things take place as they do and we make of those things what we will. Some face death with more chear and joy then some others face life; truth is in the eye of the beholder, if you will.

Combining those thoughts, was Socrates not blissfull?

[VideCorSpoon]

In the last words of Socrates, “gulp gulp gulp… I drank what!!!”

I agree with you that ignorance is bliss, that is a fundamental assertion of knowledge in Indian philosophy by the way.

One is truly wise who thinks themselves ignorant, because ignorance implies that there is more to learn as one cannot know everything.

Was Socrates blissful? Well… the man’s illustrious life ended by drinking hemlock in a prison cell while chained to the floor and left a family alone and un-provided for in a city that despised them, would you be happy? Also keep in mind that the Oracle at Delphi was some chick getting high of phosphorus fumes from beneath the temples foundations. That’s like consulting the crackhead of Camden on quantum physics.

For your other questions,

1. Do people believe what they want to regardless of the facts?

Yeah, the moon is made of swiss cheese and the craters are made of provolone.

2. Do some face death with more cheer and joy than those that face life?

Yes, that’s what is called EMO... or depressed... or suicidal... or a combination of the three. Ram Daas would say "death is like taking of a tight shoe." Unfortunately the shoe was masking some particularly bad foot odor and the wearer should have worn some type of orthodics and treated that questionable rash on the pinky toe. Mainly... death ain't all its cracked up to be.

3. Is truth in the eye of the beholder?

Yes… because I said so. (consult question 1)

[Arjen]

Well, thanks for those thoughts right there. I was hoping more on reactions on the thought that epoche has the result that one experiences more of what is taking place and that epoche also makes for "bliss" in the sense that "bliss" is the absence of judging one's own state and therefore undifined experiencing.

Your reply made me laugh though, so thanks.

p.s. I ment experience in this case not in Kant's manner; so not in the sense that it has to do with metafysics.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

The Oracle of Delphi told Socrates that of all men in Athens he was wisest. This must have come as a surprise to Socrates because he, as all you no doubt know, always declared: "I know that I know nothing" (and most likely he was not even sure of that).

People often say that "ignorance is bliss" and, in a way, I agree with those people. Things take place as they do and we make of those things what we will. Some face death with more chear and joy then some others face life; truth is in the eye of the beholder, if you will.

Combining those thoughts, was Socrates not blissfull?

Hi Arjen,

Yes I suppose he was, for combining those above thoughts, not only does he take the high ground of dispute in claiming no knowledge at the outset, but he seems to realize to that man does not take action/actions but reacts to what is present, man simply has an alternative of chosen reactions, but reaction is what he is.

[Arjen]

Hi Boagie, I think I like your vision on this. The suggestion that people are merely reacting seems very much the case. Sometimes people can also be a cause of an effect I think; but to do that one needs a gideline; an idea of what is right to do (ethics?). Socrates seems more effect then cause because he knows that he knows nothing in that sense.

Somehow the parallel doesn't seem to fit though. It seems as though Socrates takes a place that is neither cause, nor effect; as if he absorbs the "vector" (if you will). Do you see what I mean?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Hi Boagie, I think I like your vision on this. The suggestion that people are merely reacting seems very much the case. Sometimes people can also be a cause of an effect I think; but to do that one needs a gideline; an idea of what is right to do (ethics?). Socrates seems more effect then cause because he knows that he knows nothing in that sense.

Somehow the parallel doesn't seem to fit though. It seems as though Socrates takes a place that is neither cause, nor effect; as if he absorbs the "vector" (if you will). Do you see what I mean?

Hi Arjen, its been awhile!

No I think that is my point, there is only reaction. If you try to condition your reaction with ethics or morality you know that, that is a human construct. You are reacting to something in order to wish to construct a morality, after which, it will be the morality you react to. Socrates perhaps knowning there is only reaction, reacts to that as a choreographer of the play of choices. If you know that you know nothing, if you know there is only reaction, the only job available is that of a choreographer of choice.

[Arjen]

It certainly has been a long time Boagie, lets just say my attention was focussed elsewhere. It is good to be back though.

I like your thought on the matter, but I would like you to considder this:

If humans would only react, there would be no "creation" by humans. I think that there is. If all humans would do was react to causes would not everyone merely be experiencing what was pre-ordained?

Perhaps what I mean is best illustrated by the difference between empirism and rationalism. Rationalism holds that there are two parts of the mind: a metaphysical part and a part that is a priori. If humans would only react, would that not mean just metaphysics: cause and effect? However, the a priori also holds within it a promise of human creation; because it stands outside reason (and thereby cause and effect?). What do you think of that?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

It certainly has been a long time Boagie, lets just say my attention was focussed elsewhere. It is good to be back though.

I like your thought on the matter, but I would like you to considder this:

If humans would only react, there would be no "creation" by humans. I think that there is. If all humans would do was react to causes would not everyone merely be experiencing what was pre-ordained?

Perhaps what I mean is best illustrated by the difference between empirism and rationalism. Rationalism holds that there are two parts of the mind: a metaphysical part and a part that is a priori. If humans would only react, would that not mean just metaphysics: cause and effect? However, the a priori also holds within it a promise of human creation; because it stands outside reason (and thereby cause and effect?). What do you think of that?

Arjen,

Actually I am delighted to have some speculation on the topic of all being reaction, so far people just seem to ignore it or think I've stripped my gears. Creativity is indeed intriguing but as I stated somewhere else today, creativity is extension. So, what is the modivation for a creative reaction? I think you will agree that there is no outward movement which is not modivated, to react to that modivation is to concretize the concept of all being reaction.

Actually I would think the artistic medium and an abstract idea are what modivate a creative reaction. As far as cause and effect are concerned I do not believe there is a cause, there are but relational reactions, perhaps there was a cause in the begining but that would make it a historical cause and its only maybe. All of reality is based on relational reactions, if the relation or its two way reaction were not, reality would not be. Consciousness as reaction, as life, is simply a different perspective which presently just makes more sense to me.

Just ask yourself this, is there action/reaction without modivation, everything is moved by modivation, thus everything is a reaction. Actually I am begining to wonder why this is not the common perspective, no one has trouble with the idea that the physical world determines the course of evolutionary development simply by being, and it is, its being, which all organisms react to. Actually I wonder what kind of transformations in our thinking this understanding might effect--relationally of course.

[Didymos Thomas]

I'm absolutely sure Socrates had moments of bliss. I imagine we all do at some point.

But bliss is not something sustainable. Bliss is a momentary emotion. So I do not think there is much sense in wondering if he was blissful.

We might wonder if he was happy. And I think that is closer to what Arjen is asking. Even the old phrase "Ignorance is bliss" tends to be taken as meaning "Ignorance is happiness". As for the answer: there's no way to tell. You'd have to ask Socrates, and even then, he might not know. If Plato's and Xenophon's accounts are any evidence, then Socrates seems to have been a reasonably happy man.

I do not think wisdom causes harm to happiness, quite the opposite. If you are ignorant, how will you know what happiness is, much less how to find it? Sure, the wise and foolish can have moments of bliss, but the wise are best able to discover happiness as the ignorant do not even know where to begin looking.

[boagie]

Didymos,

"The more intelligent one is, the more knowledgable one becomes, the more one increase one's sorrow." Schopenhauer

I think your right about the over use of certain terms, if one is to have expectations of great or constant happyness one is setting one's self up for disappointment. There is something to be said for ignorance and perhaps unawareness, example, if there is a condition developing in the world say the population explosion and there is nothing you can do about it, your fate tied to the folly of the population as a whole. You are better off not being stressed with concern about it, better to be unaware---the more one increases one's knowledge, the more one increases his sorrow. Why do children seem so happy, because they are blissfully unaware of the human conditon.