According to Plato's "Cratylus" there is a "correctness" to names and names can also be "disguised" by altering spelling, changing syllables, or using different words with the same meaning. Although Cratylus is dismissed as "satire" on word etymology by many scholars, I believe that it holds the key to understanding a great deal of ancient history. One example of how taking Cratylus seriously can dramatically alter our views, is found in Cratylus itself when Socrates is discussing the god "Pluto" and describes him as "...the perfect and accomplished Sophist..." If there is, in fact, a "correctness" to names that can be disguised by altering spelling, then Socrates appears to be identifying Plato as a Sophist. When this idea is first encountered, most will undoubtedly reject it because it does not appear to fit the "shadow" images that Plato has presented to his readers, but if Cratylus is taken seriously, the connection is impossible to deny.Then in Plato's "Sophist" dialogue, the apparent title character is identified only as a "Stranger" and his introduction goes like this: "THEODORUS: Here we are, Socrates, true to our agreement of yesterday; and we bring with us a stranger from Elea, who is a disciple of Parmenides and Zeno, and a true philosopher.
>>18738507SOCRATES: Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in the disguise of a stranger? For Homer says that all the gods, and especially the god of strangers, are companions of the meek and just, and visit the good and evil among men. And may not your companion be one of those higher powers, a cross-examining deity, who has come to spy out our weakness in argument, and to cross-examine us?THEODORUS: Nay, Socrates, he is not one of the disputatious sort—he is too good for that. And, in my opinion, he is not a god at all; but divine he certainly is, for this is a title which I should give to all philosophers.SOCRATES: Capital, my friend! and I may add that they are almost as hard to be discerned as the gods. For the true philosophers, and such as are not merely made up for the occasion, appear in various forms unrecognized by the ignorance of men, and they 'hover about cities'..."
>>18738507Here the unnamed Stranger is not only likened to a "god" (Pluto), but he is identified as a "true philosopher...not merely made up for the occasion..." If Plato was also a Pluto, then this Stranger can also be identified as Plato, and it is suddenly revealed that his dialogues don't represent real world discussions, but are actually entirely fictional. In the literal context, Plato was supposedly just an observer, recording the discussions of others, but accepting this view would mean that Plato did not deserve to be recognized as a great philosopher, so the fiction that Plato introduced his own ideas into his dialogues was promoted by other Sophists disguised as philosophers and historians. There may have been some real person who served as an inspiration for Socrates, but it is almost certain that he was nothing like how Plato depicted him. Part of the reason that Sophists considered themselves as "gods", was because they could create entire "worlds" on a written page, and they used this ability to rewrite multiple histories to suit their purposes. Every empty or missing "tomb" serves as possible evidence that the supposed occupant never existed and the more elaborate and incredible their story, the greater the probability that their stories are mostly fiction. Herod the Great, Alexander the Great, Cleopatra and Mark Antony are among those whose histories should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion since their real world tombs have not been found.
>>18738507It is important to realize also that the idea of correctness would apply to geographic names and every early "church" was more representative of an ideological faction than a physical location. For example, "Ephesus" is connected with a dishonest form of allegoric interpretation since it was identified as the home of "Ion", Plato's dishonest interpreter of Homer.
>>18738514>>18738511>>18738509>>18738507i understeand that they are discussing the nature of names but i don't understeand the goal
>>18738507>According to PlatoStopped reading there.
My understanding is that if you take the view of names seriously in the Cratylus seriously it is getting a view in which language directly reflects reality. Something like that would have been found in views of Vedic religion where the Vedas reflect reality or in the views of magic where names reflect some metaphyscial order. The correct pronunciation of something is rooted in the creator of something and terms are actually names for natures.
>>18738541A part of the goal is really about the grounding problem in the philosophy of language. This video discusses some more contemporary approaches.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hoDNZoV5g
I had an idea for this retarded edge lord comic. Imagine some guido New York mobsters getting crossed and they realize that “this is fucking great”. They start a crossed mafia with crossed businesses doing fucked up things to survivors. Making the survivors pay protection not to get infected and shit. I think it would be interesting.
