Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to About Socrates – Contra GM…I
I thought I'd better read #I before I read #II. So I'm moving on now.
posted by
TAPS.
on January 24, 2016 at 12:14 PM
| link to this | reply
I find reading anything about Socrates to be very fascinating. You make a lot of convincing points.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on January 23, 2016 at 6:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Socrates and Saul Alinsky, and where they point on the moral compass
Nautikos, you didn't quite complete your train of thought on the difference between Socrates and Saul Alinsky. But you did say that I put Socrates and Alinsky in the same pot, and that I was wrong to do so. Later, you said that modern liberalism is an incoherent melange of stuff. Now, in the interest of 'critical thinking', I must observe, that a 'pot of stew' is a very close synonym for 'an incoherent melange of stuff'. But to the contrary, the pot of liberalism that I see is somewhat coherent. Let me elaborate a bit..... and I am not attacking you here, but seeking a concensus or a compromise, or even a mutual enlightenment, which would be very cool.....
I do indeed put Socrates and Alinsky in the same pot, the foul and stinking pot of liberalism. But they do have very stark and striking differences..... Just as a pot of stew has ingredients with stark and striking differences, of sweet or sour, soft or crunchy, hot or bitter. The clever combination of ingredients can make the pot of stew seem very tasty, even delicious. But if one cook has bitterness in his soul, one of the ingredients could be poison. The pot or melange of liberalism has many cooks, and the ingredients are varied.
Socrates was the sweet ingredient, with pure intentions of seeking Knowledge and Goodness, which unfortunately sugar-coated Evil, and gave it a very effective camouflage. But Socrates had the best intentions, to seek the Good, and he should be credited for that. As you said, Socrates was the father of critical thinking, of examining, of inspecting, of questioning, of seeking the Good. But how much of the Good did he find? He had plenty of critical thinking, plenty of sharp criticism, plenty of questions, but he did not find much in the way of answers. I would welcome any profound answers from Socrates, that you could point out for us, that arose from his extreme critical thinking, that I have missed. It is easy for anyone to find problems, but very hard to find solutions.
I may have missed something, but in my blog, I gave several of his famous quotes, and they give us profound misdirection and error, not any answers, not any profound wisdom.
But whether he was wise or not, Socrates had the best of intentions, to seek the Good, as you said. Socrates was an honorable, ethical man, trying to help his enemies as well as his friends. His way of helping was abrasive and irritating, but he envisioned a moral philosophy that treated friend or enemy the same.
In harsh contrast, Saul Alinsky was the poison ingredient of liberalism. He had the worst of intentions. He did not treat friends and enemies the same. He declared war on his enemies, and ethics were the first casualties. Just consider some quotes here from his most unethical book, Rules For Radicals, which you have already read, but I doubt anyone else besides me has read:
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action [Radical] views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other [ethical] problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether their will work… the real arena is corrupt and bloody.” (page 24) Here Alinsky brushes aside ethical problems, and prepares us for our own corruption.
“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means…” (page 29) Really?..... This is the essence of immorality, the lack f vrtue, the motto of every criminal.
“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics…” (page 34) This Alinsky rule is just the tired old bully's or predator's rule that might makes right.
“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments… if weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” (page 36) Here Alinsky tells us to hide immorality with moral garments, and to search for appropriate weapons..... weapons for unethical attack of our philosophical enemies.
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (page 134) In other words, demonize your enemies so more people will oppose them.
We cannot imagine Socrates writing such vile things, so therein lies the difference with Alinsky, as Nautikos has implied.
But still, these two philosophers are different ingredients in the same pot of liberalism. One ingredient sweet, the other poison. I could mention other philosophers with other ingredients, such as Immanuel Kant with the ingredient of altruism, or John Rawls with the ingredient of social justice and blind equality.
All four are cooks of the same foul, stinking liberal brew..... all four are wizards behind the curtain of liberalism, as I labeled them in my blog.
posted by
GoldenMean
on January 23, 2016 at 3:16 AM
| link to this | reply
How unfortunate that most of our leaders are not seeking the 'good', unless it's for their own personal benefit.
posted by
adnohr
on January 23, 2016 at 1:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Hmm? Great ideas here! Gotta love Socrates (Plato). I will have to wait, hone my critical thinking skills (or non-skills) either until after class, or until the course is over, metaphorically speaking. :) 
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on January 22, 2016 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Always something to learn here pard.
posted by
WileyJohn
on January 22, 2016 at 3:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Thanks for your thoughtful critique! I was actually hoping for some input. It was indeed a stretch for me to call Socrates the father of liberalism, and you have caught me there, LOL. But I thought I made a fair case of their similarity to some extent, with Socrates' definition of good as knowledge (only) and evil as ignorance (only), and even tying it in to the Philly mayor denying the religious evil of the jihadist who shot the police officer, quoting your great report of that.
But why did the mayor lie? Because of a refusal to see the true extent of evil, just as Socrates refused to see it. Socrates was a great critical thinker, to be sure, to an extreme, he overdid it, and that is what got him tried and condemned, IMHO. I think we are missing each other's points to some extent, and I must break off for now, but I will return when I have time, to address the Socrates / Alinsky issue. Again, thanks! 
posted by
GoldenMean
on January 22, 2016 at 2:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you.
posted by
Kabu
on January 22, 2016 at 1:04 PM
| link to this | reply