Excerpt for Contra Socrates by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

CONTRA SOCRATES



By

Edward E. Rochon




SMASHWORDS EDITION



* * * * *



PUBLISHED BY:

Edward E. Rochon on Smashwords



Contra Socrates

Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon




Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.


Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.






Some Other Works by the Author


Axioms & Theorems: An Essay
Cubics: A Numbers Essay
EMF Banding Model
Ethereal Mea Culpa
Global Warming: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II
Holographic TV: An Essay
The JU Engine
Logic & Words
Pest Control: An Essay
Pollution Solution: An Essay
Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay
Polygon Calculus
Super Intelligence: An Essay



Reading Material



* * * * *





Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface

Chapter 1: The Trial

Chapter 2: Last Judgment

About the Author




Preface

Plato portrays the death and prior events leading to the death of Socrates in Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. We briefly take a look at some main points made in those works and dismiss this man's life as being worthy of adulation, emulation or respect.



Chapter 1: The Trial

The trial takes place in Apology of Socrates as written by Plato:

ACCUSER: You claim that the jury and court of Athens was doing you a great injustice by arraigning you and condemning you to death. Prior to this, you claimed that men hated you for proving that they knew nothing. You deemed yourself superior to them only in that you knew you knew nothing. You spent years of probing into affairs of the world, of life only to prove you knew nothing. Sir, how do you know that the court did you injustice, since you clearly know nothing of justice, the case being that you know nothing? How can the plumber comment on the quality of plumbing, the carpenter on carpentry without knowing anything about it?

SOCRATES: (Silence)

ADVOCATE: Well, he was simply using a euphemism. He doesn't really mean nothing in the absolute sense.

ACCUSER: Sir, you would certainly seem to be right. He knows who his wife is, knows a fair amount of the Greek language, how to breathe, piss. Yet, he constantly claims to know nothing about great matters of the mind. Surely, justice is a great matter of the mind. He questioned men about piety, beauty and such in other works of Plato and yet claims to know nothing other than the fact that he knows nothing. That being a blatant piece of nonsense in the mundane sense, he really has no justice to claim injustice in the case of justice, impiety or any such thing. He is simply a troublesome gadfly pursuing a course without reason. For someone who knows nothing about things, you certainly spend a great deal of time blabbing about the ignorant masses. You prefer only the wise. What wise? Certainly not you. Certainly not those many people you tricked and confounded with your specious arguments. Well?

SOCRATES: (Silence)

ACCUSER: It is plain that nobody can know anything about anything unless he have some prefatory, predicate standards by which to judge. Where does he get them? They are immanent in the world. He is in the world and immanent in him. You know them because you know them. To deny you know them leads to contradiction, proving you know them. Such things as justice, piety are immaterial and indefinable, yet known to man as surely as indefinable emotions such as anger, joy and unhappiness. Such indefinable traits as love, justice and so on are also simply known and elicit emotional reactions often confused with the cause of the feelings. Yet, both sentiments and indefinable attributes are simply known immanently. Is this not true?

SOCRATES: (Silence)

ACCUSER: There is faith, but how can you have any faith? A man that does not avow knowing by that faith is no faith at all, but mere opinion. And we see no contradicting spirit here. For by faith, we merely mean no rational or empirical evidence to back up the conviction. By faith we affirm knowing what that faith maintains. Yet, you know nothing as you claim. What about your opinions? Do you know what your opinions are? That is surely knowing something. And more about faith, it is also faithfulness by some common bond to conviction. We believe in the loyalties of others or not, and believe in our own loyalties to others and to principles. By what force? By the force of conviction and must certainly believe faithfully in these convictions of faithfulness. Is that your relationship to your demon, your spirit? Do you believe him/it to be faithful and true, and you faithful and true to it? You make people think so. Surely, by faith, you must know this to be true. Or is that more opinion?

SOCRATES (Silent)

ACCUSER: You claim to have this inspirational demon that impels you or urges you to pester people and to die for what you deem an unjust conviction. You claim that the unexamined life is not worth living. One wonders why you say that and know that, since as you say you know nothing. I will tell you a secret that is no big secret. Man is both flesh and immaterial soul and spirit. He is body and immaterial mind. Man knows what he is immanently or not at all. What he does not know immanently is the various permutations of his flesh and how the permutations of the world around him affect that flesh. Yes, he is aware of his body, but not to any great detail as to its working in most or all occasions. And the same with the world that he senses all the time yet knows little about in detail. If this were not so, why do men get bellyaches that they do not want, and often cannot easily get rid of? Yet, they search the memories, the medicine cabinet and books, the advice of others to heal them of what they would rather not have. If men knew how to prevent themselves from breaking their legs, they would do so, unless some perversity of the soul impelled them otherwise. Is this not so, Socrates?

SOCRATES: (Silence)

ACCUSER: We do not examine our existence. We examine those things that impinge on our existence, at least if we have any sense, as apparently you do not. But why does the flesh and material world impinge on our souls, and is not the flesh also us? It is not in essence. My car is my car, my pen is my pen, my cat is my cat. Nobody claims this makes these things me who has any sense, or not a malicious fool and liar. We feel the assaults on the body as this is our lot. It would seem God wants us to tend to our body. People complain about the body, the Buddha and such. Yet, nobody would care about eating, sleeping, breathing, walking, working, if things went well. It is only because they do not go well. Then we have fools such as Socrates and Buddha to trick us into death worship, rather than tend to our duties. The examined life is not worth living. Know your body and that which impinges upon it. Life is not in the body but the soul, and God has planted our soul in flesh to care for our body. The examined life in the sense you mean it, is a circle of folly, a chase after wind, leading to death worship, that is called Nirvana or some equivalent notion. You claim the options after death are non-existence or a happy life of knowledge. How about an unhappy life of ignorance where fools such as you go to? Yes, you admit to believing that yourself, or at least your opinion. And since you know nothing, what do you know about death anyway? Forget the contradicting evidence that you do know things.

ADVOCATE: We all die, accuser. There is nothing to be done about it.

ACCUSER: All the more reason to tend to our health to live, to live well and to seek an imperishable glory by living well in this world and any world to come. Socrates is simply an evil death worshiper. Moreover, I do not know for certain that all must die. The good soldier does not die for his country, but lives for his country to kill its enemies or warn them off even better. If he dies in combat, he fails in his duties, and it is just too bad if some people think the truth is cruel. Oh, the ointment of self-deception that only makes the blight worse in the end. Step up to the bar and choose your poison. Right, Socrates?

SOCRATES: (Silence)

ACCUSER: You accused the court of injustice and used sophistry to avoid sparing yourself. The old bugger wanted to kick the bucket and be done with his nonsensical life. And his demon was right behind him to encourage him. And why not? Satan is ever looking to destroy men, to turn them from their duties to God, to their charges and to their own souls. We hear no one should enter your schools (inspired by, as Plato, Aristotle were students) without knowing geometry. It would be more apt to understand anatomy, physiology, nutrition and physical fitness. The beginning of Plato's idiot republic, the education of fools, was more apt than that of the fools who supposedly would run the fool's land. But, oh no, to wonder about the realms of abstraction and space, though you use it but little, neither a builder of any worth, nor an accountant, nor an engineer. We must know the theorem of adultery, of murder and licentiousness.

ADVOCATE: Your sarcasm is unwarranted, accuser.

ACCUSER: My sarcasm is warranted, advocate. This man aids and abets those he accuses of murder, and is a murderer himself for that reason. And we have seen this kind of nonsense before and after the time of Socrates. Socrates, you are a demon possessed liar, pretentious scoundrel, degenerate fool. Your wiliness in fooling millions is the work of a wily demon. He also is a fool, motivated only by lust, not caring what is good, expedient for others and not even himself. The God of this World and his prophet are evil. Now, the problems of bad memory, errors in implementation do not prove we know nothing. Know your body, the world to minimize and eliminate these problems. Stop figuring out how to deny for righteousness' sake, and start figuring out how to live for righteousness. And that starts here and now. If the murderers come after you and you fail, do not brag about your failure. Regret that you lacked knowledge and power and move on into the hereafter with a clear conscience. Your conscience, Socrates, is a tissue of filthy lies praised by filthy liars. Your idiot critics are generally also filthy liars. The lies of liars do not make the lies of Socrates true by apposition. Both sides of the room may be painted black, if black be the color of evil, or red, or white as the case may be. Enough of you, fool! Back to Table of Content



Chapter 2: Last Judgment

We do what we are, not are what we do, or rather do because of what we are. The dung beetle conception of being (experience accumulated as the beetle his dung makes us us) is utterly vile. If our memories and conditioning are impairing our ability to function, we study it not to find out what or who we are, but rather what is interfering with what we are and how to attend to that problem. Our conditioning is a thing that may be retained or purged according to the needs of our essential being. If need be, we simply forget it and go on with our lives, remembering other needful things as required. If we worry about repeating the old mistakes, without the source of conditioning, no such thing occurs. The old man is wiser than the child in such things. Tend to your wellbeing and judge all by that standard. Sound judgment will reject the old lies and bad habits, even if forgotten, by that good and useful method.

When all else fails, keep an honest heart always open to truth, ask for the provenance of God to give you wisdom and help as required. An honest heart does not look and say it sees nothing, learn and say it knows nothing. Mistakes do not make truth disappear as the magician waves his wand. The things that the magician makes vanish are still there, besides, hidden. Do not ask “What is truth?” That is escapist nonsense. You know perfectly well that what is real is true. It is only whether this or that thing, or situation is true.

The mirror that looks for the soul of awareness, sees nothing, as this is invisible. The essence of your being is not subject to analysis, interpretation, alteration or disappearance. Forgetting is not non-existence. Man is a person but not a personality. People who believe this nonsense, or pretend to, are fools and scoundrels who seek to forever deceive the human race. These are the tricks of swindlers, demagogues, and malefactors in general. This thing called personality is merely a collection of behaviors that the viewer encapsulates for convenience, including the fool who speaks of his own personality.

Actors do not play personality; that is called playing an attitude. Actors play a collection of traits that build up a persona for the character. All good actors know this. If you act and do not know this, you are surely a bad actor. He gets these traits from the requirements of the script, his notions on how to play the character as suits his current needs, and how the director and other actors force or persuade him to modify his intentions. It does not follow that the actor has no ethics, esthetic sense, or that his craft necessarily makes him a scoundrel. An impersonator is only a fraud when his intent is to defraud. Do not condemn Olivier for playing King Lear. Condemn the one or the other as the case merits for reasons other than impersonation.

Let us consider what justice is. It is for any being capable of acting upon it, using it for a guide, precisely what his own conscience tells him it is. Now there are questions of fact and questions of law. The law rightly is founded upon conscience and through that upon justice. Questions of fact misrepresented can indeed lead to miscarriages of justice. This is separate from justice. For conscience to exist it must be based on freedom or is a farce. If it exists, it must be absolute, or it is a farce. What is absolute? My conscience is my conscience. I cannot transfer it to any man, group of man or to God. It is mine, and it is absolute. To give my conscience away is immoral, and also fraud, because conscience is absolute and cannot be given away. If I am uncertain as to fact and probity, I might defer when a decision must be made, a mandatory, or seemingly mandatory and pressing verdict. Now, of a certainty, we can make no certain moral judgment when facts are in dispute. An apparent murder may be self-defense and no murder at all.

But what if a man says good is evil, a crime is justice, and claims freedom of conscience? He is a liar, and you tell him so. What if it is arbitrary? A man thinks a certain food is bad for him and refrains from eating for some reason of conscience. Why? Because it is immoral to hurt his own wellbeing, perhaps. Because he believes God does not want him to eat it, and God, being his spiritual father, he feels obligated ethically to obey. In these cases, it is a personal or situational decision. We know the difference between theft, murder on the one hand, and such dietary laws on the other. These arbitrary matters are also teleological. There is some point of ethics beyond the horizon of the matter that is in question. And if God tells you one thing and another person another thing, you deal with it personally.

In the Crito, Socrates will not flee from judgment, because he thinks this is paying back evil for evil, because he thinks he is obligated to submit to injustice as a matter of justice. In other words, he is violating the spirit of the law in order to obey the letter of the law. And that is the case, no matter what that Greek degenerate would try to make of it.

Let us compare this to the crucifixion of Christ. The gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified unjustly, and he knew this. He also knew that he could prevent this quite easily. Did he aid and abet in his own murder? According to the letter of the law, the answer is: yes. But how could that be? It was the will of God. If God is unjust, who can be just? And do we not believe that God is perfect and incapable of vice, or error or anything like that? Good point. What does scripture tell us was the ultimate purpose of the crucifixion? Why to make men just, to spare men's lives from hell. Make men just in what way? By their freewill acceptance of the grace of God, a grace that could not be received without that grace freely given by God, beyond man's coercion or power of any sort. The purpose of all this was to instill righteousness, not vice, to grant kindness, not cruelty, to work to the commonwealth of man. These are not evil goals, yet came about by breaking the letter of the law. You say God is perfect and all-wise? Suppose God saw that by breaking the letter of the law the spirit of the law would be fulfilled? Are you wise enough to call God to account on this? Not to mention that you have no interest in doing so.

And if you say that both letter and spirit must be obeyed, then why does St. Paul and so many speak of their being a distinction? If a man's child is bleeding to death, and he speeds to the hospital, and the police follow him to the emergency room to ticket him, let us say. The policeman noted him speeding on open road outside of the town hospital, going fast but not recklessly. He noted the desperate man drive up to the hospital safely. The man rushes past the officer to help his son. The officer sees the boy is quite bloody and lets the man alone until the child is cared for. The policeman interrogates the man to find out if any crime were committed. It was a farming accident, and the man desperately wanted to save his son's life. The letter of the law was broken. We suppose these laws are made to save people's lives and wellbeing. Saving life was the father's intention. You heard the scenario. The officer writes off the speeding violation, no ticket. The letter killeth; the spirit giveth life.

But what if the frantic man caused an accident where 6 people died, including his son, and four cars and a truck were destroyed? This is not what happened. Yet, you would be right. That man would be wrong in both letter and spirit.

So Christ breaks the letter of the law to fulfill the spirit of the law, while Socrates breaks the spirit of the law to uphold the letter of the law.

Socrates talks about his father, the city of Athens, his sires and so forth. Conscience is absolute. First, God made Socrates, not his father, Athens, Greece or anything else. This is absolute. I care not what his father and mother intended. They would not exist without God placing them there, nor Athens, nor Greece nor the earth itself have any power to do anything, to make any choices. If the father is a murderer, the son has a right to kill him in self-defense, and the same for Athens and Greece.

No matter what scoundrels such as Socrates maintain, there is no moral equivalent between the executioner and the criminal, none between the self-defense of the wronged party against the would be murderer. If you injure the murderer, this is not evil but justice. It is good for his soul. Let him make his pleas to God for reprieve upon his death. If granted, why second guess God whose knowledge is so much greater than yours, and moreover you can do nothing about it except perhaps sulk. What a waste of time.

Lastly, let us go back to the flesh, that flesh that Christ died for to purify by purification of the spirit as well. For both spirit and flesh, mind and body must be pure to be pure. In Phaedo, he goes on with the crap that the flesh impairs the purification of the soul. We know this garbage from the heretics of the early church, the Buddha, Hinduism and all heresies and false sects. We are told that the body that Christ made and God gave is the devil's work. But it is Socrates and Buddha that are in the devil's party.

Does not vice lead to the mortification of the flesh one way or the other? Yes, the drug pusher that refrains from his own product is better off marginally. Well, that is a virtue of sort. At least he has not sunk to the level of a drug addict. But competition gangbangers will not hesitate to shoot him. And with that, are not little children often killed in shootouts, bringing down the wrath of the law upon the criminals? When caught, the gas chamber or life in prison, and constant danger in that place. Is not vice founded upon spiritual corruption? Yes, so mortification of the flesh through vice is both spiritual and carnal. And the ascetic, rather than purify himself by character and healthy living, he mortifies the flesh under the swindle that he is purifying the flesh for vanity's sake. Yes, it is plain to an intelligent man that it is so. So in fact the flesh that Christ gave us actually greatly encourages us to remain pure in moral integrity and pure in the flesh itself. The flesh, in this sense, works against Satan not for him. Do not lie. The drunkard that wakes up in filth, robbed, and beholding his sickly face, sometimes comes to his senses. And a great encouragement it is, better than the lies of Buddha, shaman filth and that sort.

It is the same satanic fraud to rob us of the world we live in, of obedience to God that ordained our flesh, and that greatest of earthly robberies, the loss of our carnal body to death. But who can oppose the grim reaper? Shut up and do your duty. Beg for mercy on your death bed, and after your demise. Do what is right. Seek the Peaceable Kingdom. Do not let Satan trick you, rob you. That Greek moron is a filthy liar, knowing nothing of God, or truth or anything of value. Yes, a know nothing lying fraud of a Greek, mixing the Canaanite drivel with the Hindu and Druid nonsense that dwelled about Sodom, and just as deadly as the sins of Canaan, perhaps more so.

Socrates in Phaedo tries to show some Hegelian type of fusion between life and death, pleasure and pain. This is all nonsense. Life need not end in death, pleasure in pain or the reverse. Nor does ethics demand vice. It only demands the recognition that the opposite exists. Opposites cannot synthesize, fuse into each other. And, no, the middle is not the synthesis of left and right, but the annihilation of or abnegation of the two. It is neither the one nor the other nor the fusion, if annihilation or abnegation sounds too strong or misleading. Left is left, not right. This is positional and position determines what is what, but the two are always distinct. They do not become a synthesis. In the world of indefinables, this positional has no place. Evil is evil from whatever attitude it is viewed. Yes, and liars are liars who speak of all is relative, and thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This is all political (more aptly in most cases impolitical) wheeling and dealing. Deals are deals, not ethics. They do not bend the absolute distinctions between things. Lies and liars change nothing but their lies, and the lives of those stupid enough to believe, due to their own unbelief in the truth and willingness to love folly. It is their folly, not the lies that have done them in. And Socrates is one of the first class liars of antiquity.

Recapping some points of the immortality of the soul, starting with recollection of knowledge. Indefinable truths are always present. Even geometric precepts are always before us. They need no recollection from a previous life or any life. Dreams of past life are not proof as these are simply imaginings of the mind, as with all memory and imagination. Genesis indicates that the breath of life came from God. Hebrew and Greek have the same parallelism that breath or wind and spirit are the same word for the two distinct purposes, one a physical sense, the other a metaphysical, immaterial sense. God is eternal, and his life, so eternal life was breathed into man. This makes man eternal in some sense not subject to rational analysis. But man is also properly in the body, and this is transitional. This is a mystery. So the eternal life of God in man must be preexistent, while the body, in contrast, created in time.

Moreover, the eternal exists in the present world as well. The point on the timeline has no transitional span, yet must be there. What is in the world is there, even as the world moves on and represented on the timeline as doing so. Also recollected things are incompatible with eternity. Eternity is not recollected but eternal. Eternal knowledge is immanent or does not exist. That is to say, it is not eternal at all, but temporal. And nothing can be recollected until learned, and nothing learned without ignorance prior to that learning.

Socrates speaks of the Swan Song in Phaedo as proof of the joy the swan takes in dying. My God, how this man who knows nothing is free in his opinions about such things! Perhaps, the swan sings to take its attention off of its illness and impending demise? Swans often mate for life. Maybe he is telling his mate that his time with her is coming to an end, in addition to his sadness at passing? I am not convinced by this, sir. You are a death worshiper serving the works of evil and Satan. Look, fool, let your carnal nature stimulate you to greater virtue and wisdom to keep it whole. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”, as Jesus opines? All the more reason to strengthen your spiritual resolve and so your salvation. God made flesh and blood and called it good.

Another point, beauty does not make beauty in the thing. Beauty is the attribute that is induced by the thing in the beholder. The object does not make beauty. That is the function of the beholder. Now this trait is not subject to logical discourse in any direct way, because such attributes of man are subjective, no object to parse or analysis. Yet logic can make note of its existence, form opinions on what might influence people by this trait, and possibly be right or possibly be wrong due to the subjective nature of the thing.

That this man, Socrates, is ethical, his Greek culture admirable, that he in any way conforms to the teachings of God, Jesus Christ, is an abominable lie. We get this from so called church fathers, loathsome heretics and frauds themselves. And their disciples prove their evil nature by calling them fathers of the church. They are fathers of lies and filth, just as their predecessors Satan and his fallen legions.

Socrates was quite an actor, and I believe him to be a fraud, a fool at best, a useful idiot for satanic forces. Back to Table of Content

#####


Other Works by the Author

(Available online)

Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Space as Infinity: An Essay
Space as Infinity II: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V


About the Author

My current biography and contact links are posted at smashwords.com/profile/view/EdRochon. My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.

Back to Title Page


Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-13 show above.)