Who of you is quick witted enough to discuss philosophy like Socrates?Last night on a whim, I decided to have a Socratic dialogue with my gf about the One and the Many. She was my interlocutor, who had never read any philosophy. I began by introducing the idea of the forms of One and of Many, and asked her if she thought the Many contained the One. We went from there wherever the conversation took us. I tried to come up with unintuitive consequences of her statements to trip her up, like Socrates did. At first she got frustrated, saying, "Why are you asking me if you already know?" I said to her, "I know nothing. I am just a midwife, helping you to give birth to your own knowledge." The conversation led us to the third man argument, whereby from her prior answers it seemed that there were infinitely many Manys each containing the smaller Many. She denied strongly that the One and the Many were actually the same, instead opting to accept any other nonintuive result if it kept them separate. All in all, it was a good mental exercise, and I found myself wishing I were more skilled and knowledgeable about the arguments in Parmenides and elsewhere. Have any of you endeavored similarly? How did it go?
>>23974931https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8&I'm not as good as the professionals
>>23974931I'm impressed by the anon who wrote this. I want to be able to write like this.
>>23974931Yes I do this with family members. Never felt close enough to a girlfriend to ever try with her
>>23974998how do I do this ?
>>23974998that whole exchange reads exactly like every cross-examination in every trial everif you want to be able to write like this, then watch more court tv
>>23974998>>23975556Read the complete works of Plato. Then read your favourite dialogues again. Study what Socrates does. I didn't write that picrel but I can write something that compares.
>>23974931>I decided to have a Socratic dialogue with my gf >gf
>>23974931>>23975556Unironically try having these arguments by yourself, switch perspectives at every turn like those guys who play chess against themselves
>the two citations from deleuze's essay on parmenides that mindbroke /lit/ for months are now even causing anon's gf to suffer
>admiring socratic philosophyNietzsche already debunked this. Real philosophy starts at people claiming knowledge, not lé' 'i know nothing, what does everything mean???'
>>23977225>feel emboldened by anon’s post>make a thread on /lit/ claiming knowledge>everyone calls me a retardA-am I a real philosopher
>>23977230everybody that calls you retarded without positing his own knowledge is your inferior anon
>>23974998>>239755561. Pick a position that a potential reader (i. e. trad anti-SJW 4channer) already agrees with.2. Write an outline of your argument.3. Add a strawman of your opponent that says 'Yes' to every part of your argument and in the end calls himself a cuckold.4. You can now write like that anon. Besides the ridiculous non sequitur on picrel, the obviously wrong part of his argument is equating things that happened before and after accepting the pact of marriage. It's like saying that it doesn't matter whether you take someone's money before or after they agreed to give it to you. It's also funny how he avoids naming the actual reasons why adultery is bad besides the broken trust (risk of pregnancy and STDs, giving attention to strangers instead of family members) because he either never thought that far or he realized that spelling them out makes it obvious why doing it before and during marriage is obviously different.Notice how I didn't need to triple this post's length by adding imaginary dialogue with an opponent who always agrees with me and calls themselves stupid in the end.
>>23974931No idea. Can you?
>>23977435But that is literally how Socrates wrote, I don't think you understood the post
>>23974931Trying to have a philosophical discussion with any of the girls I've dated was like trying to have discussion with a toddler. They either don't understand your point at all and veer off on a tangent or just accept whatever you say without consideration.
>>23977462Socrates never wrote anything. But yes, a lot of Socratic dialogues are just dishonest strawmanning. But the ones we mostly remember are good ones, featuring clever ideas, logically consistent chains of thought and opponents who at least try to fight back. The John Green cuck anon has none of these.
>>23977435>>23977484>t. seething cuckoldSeethe harder lmao>equating things that happened before and afterSocrates doesn't totally equate fornication with adultery, only claiming that the physical action of sex is the same for the both.>whether you take someone's money before or after they agreed to give it to youNot the same thing, because someone handing you cash is physically different from you picking his pocket.>he avoids naming the actual reasons why adultery is badHe does. He mentions STDs and unwanted pregnancies and memories. >non sequiturIt's not a non sequitur because Socrates leads the digression back to the original topic.>But muh strawmanJust because John Green is a strawman doesn't mean Socrates's argument is wrong.Just so you can keep seething, Mr. Cuckold, I'm going to simplify the argument as bare as possible, which you will find impossible to disprove.>Adultery is bad>Adultery = "my wife fucked someone else" + "betrayal of trust">There's no point in trusting someone not to do something bad, if the thing were only bad because it betrayed trust>Therefore, "my wife fucked someone else" is bad by itself.>"my wife fucked someone else" is the same for adultery and fornication>Therefore, fornication is bad
>>23974931>I tried to come up with unintuitive consequences of her statements to trip her up, like Socrates did.That only works if the interlocutor is dogmatically spouting off about shit zealously while wholeheartedly believing himself a genius (see Hippias of Elis, Euthyphro and Thrasymachus for great examples).What you did is the equivalent of picking up a random high school debate card and then telling her “we debate Parmenides’ One and the flux of Heraclitus, you take Parmenides’ side.”
>>23977116What are you talking about?
>>23977736>Socrates doesn't totally equate fornication with adultery, only claiming that the physical action of sex is the same for the both.He said they are wrong for same reasons, which is idiotic.>Not the same thing, because someone handing you cash is physically different from you picking his pocket.A. Mom tells son to take his pocket money from her drawer, which he does.B. Son searches mom's drawer on his own and takes the money on his own.These are exactly the same.>He mentions STDs and unwanted pregnancies and memories.Funny, I actually skipped past that. This is an obvious lie by omission - he says that the chance of STDs and pregnancy are the same for adultery and fornication, but conveniently skips that the outcomes for those are very different before and after marriage . >It's not a non sequiturWhy is 'illegal' the same as 'breaking someone's trust'? Why does murder being wrong for reasons other than the law means every other illegal or trust-breaking thing also is?>There's no point in trusting someone not to do something bad, if the thing were only bad because it betrayed trustWrong. My trust can be an end goal by itself. >"my wife fucked someone else" is the same for adultery and fornicationAlso wrong, because in the second case there is no wife because you aren't married yet.
>>23977225you need to understand something about nietzche. the boy was a chronic masturbator.
>>23977901pretty much every woman dogmatically spouts off shit zealously while wholeheartedly believing herself a genius im afraid.
>>23974931It should be considered gallantry for men not to ever discuss philosophy with women unless asked first. Talking to an earnest female philosopher is extremely rare.
>>23974998>I would feel angry >I would feel suprisedFIFY>there is a trust essential in marriage>there is an agreement in marriageFIFYAnd most importantly:>>Is it wrong to do something illegal, correct?>Correct.>>Is it wrong to do something illegal, correct?>Incorrect.FIFYThe anon who wrote this, and those who praise it, didn't study law.And those who think otherwise are chuds.
>>23978346>The anon who wrote this, and those who praise it, didn't study law.Thank G-d, desu. The last thing we need is input from "people" who study law.
>>23978206So the cuckold keeps seething?>He said they are wrong for same reasons, which is idiotic.Because the physical action is the same for both. If it's idiotic, prove him wrong.>A. Mom tells son to take his pocket money from her drawer, which he does.>B. Son searches mom's drawer on his own and takes the money on his own.They are the same with respect to debit. The loss of the money itself still smarts her the same.>the outcomes for those are very different before and after marriageThe outcomes are the same. The degree of the outcomes is different.>Why is 'illegal' the same as 'breaking someone's trust'?It's called an analogy, dipshit. It's not the exact same, only similar.>My trust can be an end goal by itself.This is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. It's like getting a fishing license even though you never plan to go fishing. It's like buying a movie ticket even though you don't plan to see the movie. Why don't you just kill yourself, for saying something so stupid.>in the second case there is no wife because you aren't married yetIt means your wife fucked someone else before she married you, you moron.
>>23978346So you wouldn't get angry if your wife cheated on you? lmao
>>23977901Not at all. Theaetetus follows this formula despite young Socrates not claiming to know anything. It was not a debate, because I had no position. I was simply helping her to understand the consequences of her statements. If she said something contradictory, we could go back and revise one of the statements. That's just a discussion, anon.
>>23978355True. Those people might even end up producing very controversial opinions like "laws don't always try to achieve good".Better let the sheep talk.>>23978461No, I would be surprised.Can you be angry if you agreed to marry a woman that you knew could cheat on you? Yes, of course. She did something you expected her to do, and she did.But I would not marry such a woman.Similarly to getting a human shepherd vs a dog... You may expect the dog to piss on your porch, and you'd get angry at it because of that. But can you be angry at the human shepherd? No, you can only be surprised, and somewhat sad that he became crazy.But that's how I approach this thing.Normies act differently.I agree that while you cope with your pain, anger is one of the steps. But not really the beginning of it all. For that matter, you might even say that you will end up accepting the fact and move on.So what then, you won't accept your wife cheating on you? It sounds hillarious doesn't it? Then what is the correct response? I think it's "suprised". At the end of the day, the only sure thing you can expect from yourself is to be surprised from the actions of the woman. Greene, because he is a beta cuck, might get right to depression, and then acceptance.Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>23978511>I agree that while you cope with your pain, anger is one of the steps. So you would get angry>But not really the beginning of it all. That doesn't change the fact that you would get angry
>>23978519>So you would get angryNo, I would not. I specifically stated that it's normies that act this way, I would just act suprised.As I also stated, Greene imo wouldn't get angry. He would be suprised at first, then depressed and at last accept his new wife's boyfriend.You think it's very natural to get angry at your wife cheating, so you might be the one to get angry. Stop projecting.>Inb4 this model is 100% corrent and never fails.Maybe for normies, who adapt to what society expects of them.
>>23974931>Last night on a whim, I decided to have a Socratic dialogue with my gf I fucking hate reddit
>>23978427>Because the physical action is the same for both. If it's idiotic, prove him wrong.In case you haven't been paying attention in science class, time is also part of physics. Physical actions that occur at different points in time are not the same.>They are the same with respect to debit. You're moving the goalposts. First you said they were the same, now they're same with respect to debit. The bottom line is - one is a gift, another one is stealing. The only difference is timeframe and breaking of trust.>The outcomes are the same. The degree of the outcomes is different.First of all - no, getting pregnant before marrying and after is not the same, because in second case husband will be forced to raise another man's child. Second of all, degree of things matters in context. Boiling water and ice are the same substance, the only difference being (literally) degrees. But you wouldn't call them the same thing in general context, would you?>It's called an analogy, dipshit. And it doesn't hold. How does 'Murder is bad for reasons besides the law' imply 'Something that breaks trust is bad for reasons besides the trust?' The logic doesn't make sense. Does this also mean that every illegal thing is bad for reasons besides the law?>It's like getting a fishing license even though you never plan to go fishing. It's like buying a movie ticket even though you don't plan to see the movie.Why not? What if I want to hang the license on my wall? What if I collect movie tickets but don't watch movies? People are forbidden to spend time and money on things that matter to them but are pointless to others? This is one of the reasons why the law analogy doesn't work: someone's personal morals are under no obligation to be objective or universal. They do, however, matter to people personally, why the law sometimes doesn't.>It means your wife fucked someone else before she married youBut how can there be your wife if you aren't married yet?
>>23978527Okay, you can do whatever you want. Just don't tell us to follow you in bullshit.
>>23978569>Time is also part of physics. Physical actions that occur at different points in time are not the same.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-translation_symmetry>First you said they were the same, now they're same with respect to debit. What's the problem? I'm just clarifying why they're the same.>one is a gift, another one is stealing. The only difference is timeframe and breaking of trust.Look at the mathematics, from Mom's perspective.Gift = (Positive of Son Gaining) + (Negative of Mother Losing) = Net PositiveTheft = (Positive of Son Gaining) + (Negative of Mother Losing) + (Negative of Breaking Trust) = Net NegativeThe actual debit, the losing of the money itself for the mother, is a negative, which is outweighed in the gift by the positive of her seeing her son gaining, which canceled by the negative of breaking trust in theft.>How does x imply yThat's not the point of an analogy, dipshit. It's supposed to illustrate a similar situation, to make the original one easier to understand. It's not supposed to prove it.>Does this also mean that every illegal thing is bad for reasons besides the law?Every rightfully illegal thing is bad for reasons besides the law, yes.>What if I want to hang the license on my wall? What if I collect movie tickets but don't watch movies?picrel is you>But how can there be your wife if you aren't married yet?A wife is assumed in an argument about adultery, moron.
>>23977435>>23978206>>23978569Are you a woman seething about not being a virgin, or a man coping about not having a virgin wife?
>>23974998The difference between your now wife having had sex before you met them, and them doing it while you're with them is just that, your experience with the person. Since you have no overview (and likely never will) of a person before the time of meeting them, it is pointless to be upset about whatever mistakes they made. She can tell you she slept with 0 men while having slept with 100, and tell you she slept with 100 while having slept with 0. It is not likely you will be able to determine the truth (unless she posts everything online I guess), so you have to go with your experience of the person currently. If they suit your wants and needs now and in the future, it matters not what she did or didn't do before you two met.After you have known her for a time you will have had the experience of being with her and determining whether she is suitable for you or not. If she sleeps with someone else and you do not like her sleeping with others, you leave her, if you are okay with it (like Socrates the cuck implies) you stay with her. Marriage is completely retarded so I won't speak on that, but yeah, the difference is your experience of the person.
>>23978572>Starts making memes for a random anon to cope, seethe and dilateGood boy.
>>23978801>>23978801>Since you have no overview (and likely never will) of a person before the time of meeting them, it is pointless to be upset about whatever mistakes they made.So you wouldn't mind marrying a serial murderer, right? Since the murders were all in the past.>It is not likely you will be able to determine the truth, so you have to go with your experience of the person currently.So you wouldn't mind if your wife cheated on you, if she hid it from you and you didn't know about it? It's not likely you will be able to determine the truth of her adultery.
>>23978607>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-translation_symmetryYou don't even know what a symmetry is. Anyways, actions which happened at different points at time are not the same action. >I'm just clarifying why they're the same.But in the next paragraph you write that one is net positive and another is net negative lmao. So they are only the same wrt debt, but otherwise different. But they are physically the same action, only differing in time. So time difference is important here. >The actual debit, the losing of the money itself for the mother, is a negative, which is outweighed in the gift by the positive of her seeing her son gaining, which canceled by the negative of breaking trust in theft.Good, so you admit that trust is an independent variable that makes a difference between positive and negative. But isn't that Mom's fault for trusting her son? Shouldn't she just change her trust so that she feels good anyway?>That's not the point of an analogy, dipshit. It's supposed to illustrate a similar situation, to make the original one easier to understand. It's not supposed to prove it. If it doesn't prove anything, we can discard it from the proof.>Every rightfully illegal thing is bad for reasons besides the law, yes.Okay, so some things are 'unrightfully illegal' and they aren't bad for reasons besides the law. So your analogy doesn't even work.>picrel is youReal smart. So you are implying that people's personal preferences don't matter unless they are logically derived from some universal truths? You can't do things just because you like them unless you can rationalize your actions to a stranger? >A wife is assumed in an argument about adulteryIt's an argument about adultery and fornication. In case of fornication there is, by definition, no marriage and no wife. >>23978643Focus on the argument you're losing, not my personality.
>>23979048>So time difference is important here.Yes, the time difference makes theft bad and gift good. And the time difference, in the case of adultery, makes adultery worse than fornication. But the time difference does not make adultery bad and fornication good.>But isn't that Mom's fault for trusting her son? Shouldn't she just change her trust so that she feels good anyway?If she changes her trust and lets her son have the money, the money becomes a gift and is no longer theft.>we can discard it from the proof.It was never part of the proof, dipshit. You were trying to make it "part of the proof" so you could "disprove" it.>Okay, so some things are 'unrightfully illegal' and they aren't bad for reasons besides the law. So your analogy doesn't even work.The analogy only concerns the laws of murder. It does not concern any other law.>your analogyIt's not my analogy. I didn't write the Socratic dialogue.>Real smart. Thanks for the compliment>you are implying that people's personal preferences don't matter unless they are logicalYes. I don't believe people should be idiots and buffoons.>In case of fornication there is, by definition, no marriage and no wife.Yes, at the time of fornication. But a married wife could have fornicated before marriage, and that is the point of discussion.>Focus on the argument you're losing, not my personality.NTA, but it's clear you're an autistic cuckold. Only the most autistic sperg actually declares out loud that he's winning an argument.
>>23978857>you wouldn't mind>you wouldn't mindI wouldn't marry anyone to begin with, so I'll assume you mean having a gf.Consider that both of these come from suspicions you can only have once you have an experience with the person. I guess if they're so far gone that they tell you that they're a serial killer on the third date, you might want to get outta there, but I doubt it's something people would be so upfront about, same about cheating, having slept with 100 guys, etc. For both of cases, if I had sufficient evidence for myself, I would of course leave the person.My point with all of this is, is that you never really know a person, only what they tell you, and what you can find out. If you find out something you don't like, and you are sure of it, follow your own beliefs. But it is generally quite difficult to ascertain things from before two people have known each other. You don't see the person's growth, mistakes, demeanour, and the like, until you have some understand of them from your own experience, and have spent some time with them. You can think of the person in a B&W world who only read about colors, but then saw color for real, as an analogy.
>>23974931Sokrates was a faggot.
>>23979293nietzsche is a secondary source to the greeks
>>23979288>>23979156tourist here, is this level of low thought shit flinging typical of this board? I'd have held /lit/ to a higher standard.Am I missing something?
>>23979358No, this is an astonishing series of poor argumentation. One of both of them are tourists.
>>23979358It is. Get out if you value your time.
>>23979358We are all but mere pseuds.
>>23979288>I'll assume you mean having a gfI do not mean this.>If you find out something you don't like, and you are sure of it, follow your own beliefs.And I don't like a wife who has had sex with other men.>My point with all of this is, is that you never really know a person, only what they tell you, and what you can find out.I agree with this. But my point is that being unable to know 100% if a woman's a virgin doesn't mean that it's okay for me to have a non-virgin wife.
>>23979358>Am I missing something?yes brain cells
>>23979462Then we agree, very well. I think you should seek out a virgin wife if that is what you want. Good luck in all of this>>23979358You're welcome to join the conversation, I'm sure all of us have a lot to learn from you
>>23978261can any anon disprove of this knowledge?im afraid this notion scares my soul barren and i really need help, it is a lie; right?
>>23980234its impossible to disprove opinions althougheverbeit
>>23979156>And the time difference, in the case of adultery, makes adultery worse than fornication.So you have already backpedaled on implying that time doesn't matter. These are different actions and there is some variable which causes the difference between the outcomes. And why can't this variable be big enough to cause one to be a positive and another one to be a negative, just like it does in the case of son taking money? You have written down the math yourself right here: >>23978607>If she changes her trust and lets her son have the money, the money becomes a gift and is no longer theft.This is the point that pseudo-Socrates made - if someone does something which goes against your personal boundaries, you should just change them so that you don't feel bad about the action. This is obviously a moronic statement. People don't derive their boundaries and morals logically from first principles. We don't rationalize our judgement on every issue and codify it. The way we decide whether something is right or wrong is generally just asking ourselves whether it feels right or wrong to us, and then we justify the result. Why would you expect anyone to just freely change their outlook on life post hoc to feel good about someone breaking your personal boundaries? This isn't really a principal position for me, though. Feel free to be the 10000th philosopher to try to build an objective universal paradox-free system of morality where every action can be logically evaluated. I don't want to argue against your model and try to disprove it. I'm just saying that you can't expect most people to follow you there.>It was never part of the proof. You were trying to make it "part of the proof" so you could "disprove" it.It does seem strange to include an analogy that doesn't work into your argument, and I think it's fair to point this out.>Yes. I don't believe people should be idiotsYou should start with yourself. Your definition of 'idiocy' includes having hobbies (i. e. collecting movie tickets) which are, by definition, activities done for personal pleasure, not out of logical necessity. Which could be understandable (although it would entail a very sorry life) if you weren't also posting on 4chan, which I don't think is something you do out of necessity. So aren't you an idiot? I'm just having fun here, because I'm allowed to have fun, but can you explain the logical necessity of you being here? On one hand, I'm giving you an easy out here - you can jokingly agree with me and escape this conversation, but keep in mind that it would mean that I logically disproved your presence on 4chan. >But a married wife could have fornicated before marriageBut there was no wife before the marriage. You're saying that 'Your wife fucked someone' is same for adultery and fornication, but in fornication there is, by definition, no marriage and no wife. If there was a wife, it would be adultery, not fornication. A bit of a logical inconsistency, innit?
>>23980639>So you have already backpedaled on implying that time doesn't matter.I first said that time doesn't matter for the physical action itself. Then I said that time changes other things which may or may not change the net result. >You have written down the math yourself right hereThe math for adultery is differentFornication = (Negative of Wife Fucking Another Man) = Net NegativeAdultery = (Negative of Wife Fucking Another Man) + (Negative of Breaking Trust) = Net NegativeSee the difference?>This is the point that pseudo-Socrates made - if someone does something which goes against your personal boundaries>People don't derive their boundaries>someone breaking your personal boundariesSocrates doesn't say anything about personal boundaries, dipshit.>It does seem strange to include an analogy that doesn't work into your argument, and I think it's fair to point this out.But it does work, as an illustration.>activities done for personal pleasure, out of logical necessity>I don't think is something you do out of necessity>can you explain the logical necessity of you being here?When did I say 'necessity'? I have never used the word 'necessity'. Why do you think I care about 'necessity'?>Your definition of 'idiocy' includes having hobbies When did I say that? The only one I meant as idiot was the guy in >>23978607 pic>there was no wife before the marriageThe word 'wife' is used accidentally to identify the woman whom the husband is now currently married to, and this woman was before the marriage, though not as a wife, but still as the same woman. Before the marriage, she fornicates, during the marriage, she adulterates. And this is the point of discussion.>I logically disproved your presence on 4chanImagine bragging about winning an argument on 4chan lmao. Same energy as picrel.
>>23979358>low thought>I'd have
Uh no in reality it would go like this>S: So what is the difference between fornication and adultery? Is it of the body?>G: Yes.>S: How so? Is not the carnal act the same?>G: It is. But in marriage I lay claim to her body.>S: How so?>G: By the contract of marriage.>S: I see. And through this claim she is forbidden to copulate with others, correct?>G: Yes.>S: So the difference is a mere breach of law then?>G: Yes. >S: Would you say then if a man stole from you in a land where thievery is not outlawed, you would accept it?>G: No.>S: Then why do you accept your wife's past fornication?>G: I see no contradiction here, Socrates. Theft and sex outside marriage are different acts.>S: True. But is it not so that your wife robbed you of her virginity?>G: She robbed herself of it. It was never mine, since she was not a virgin when she became my wife.>S: Yet do you not feel robbed?>G: I do. >S: And would you not prefer that your wife would be a virgin?>G: Alas, I would, but this cannot be.
>>23974998just call him ugly lol
