WillowBear's Amble: Socrates didn't /quit/.    
 Socrates didn't /quit/.4 comments
12 Sep 2002 @ 23:26, by Ben Tremblay


[< Back] [WillowBear's Amble]



13 Sep 2002 @ 01:22 by jazzolog : A Bitter Taste
Wonderful to see a new entry, Ben. I was an ardent follower in college of a professor, named George Goldat, who was so thoroughly endowed with the Socratic method that the Tibetans might have crowned him the reincarnation. The thought of Socrates' death was enough to bring tears to my late professor's eyes. George was Jewish and I am Christian, but I think we both would understand your notion that more freedom in Socrates would have kept him living and teaching. Of course Socrates was neither Jewish, Christian or Buddhist, so we may only surmise whether or not he would have agreed with you. I tend to think he might not have. I remember I was rather shocked the first time I read a Zen commentary (I believe) about Jesus that said it was clear he was almost enlightened but not quite; otherwise he would have gotten out of that crucifixion koan. Your remark has a bit of the same effect on me.
Sure enough, we're all going to die...and in one way or another we choose how it will be everyday. Most of us make those choices with diet and stress, sleep and sex habits, stuff like that I suppose. But sometimes a choice flies right into our face---as it did for people at WTC who chose to leap rather than burn. It seems impossible for the human mind (and reflex system) to be absolutely certain we are prepared for such a choice...or even the last breath. Religion seems to offer us the best opportunity to prepare. Best wishes, Ben, in your own ongoing pilgrimage.  

13 Sep 2002 @ 04:11 by shawa : Socrates...
... didn´t choose to die, even for the right reasons. The damn dogs of hell of his day cornered him into it - and ignobly so, forced him to "choose" death. Gosh, has anything changed since way back then ? Don´t think so. And just for that, for so many dead Socrateses, let´s choose to LIVE, and not back down. Thanks, cho. _(*)_

Long story short, Shakti-lha: he chose not to use the escape plan his supporters had provided. Fuller version: he was told that a ship was ready at anchor to take him away (Southern Italy?) but he repudiated the idea, pointing out that he had dedicated himself to the life of his city and wouldn't contradict that effort by acting in contempt for its processes. It was much more like Japanese _sepuku_, where one's dignity is maintained by accepting the finding rather than being forced to it. Socrates chose to die in a principled manner rather than either repudiate his thoughts or slip through the trap-door.
A more Gnostic view of life and affairs might lead to another ending, but then that view would have led to another set of life activities ... _matati mutandis_ [or something like that).  

14 Sep 2002 @ 06:28 by scotty : hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm
Don't you think though that it's a bit like the Samorai -choosing to die for their honour !
Why should Socrates 'choose' to die in a pincipled manner ..... !
They don't have real 'choice' at all - it's just the same old 'game'

Shakti is right - nothing much has changed - YET!

Can't we just live honourably!


14 Sep 2002 @ 10:14 by bushman : Not what if.
I checked out that site scotty, and I don't think it's what if, but they are here. Like the first manifestations of this new human, would be kids with ADD/H, then they become Indigo kids, then a phase where the aquiered gifts just happen spontainiously, like if the kid is happy or sad or mad, then the next might be kids that could control the gift. I see a bunch of little Jesus's running around. It's going to be intresting situation for sure. :}  

Other entries in
5 Nov 2002 @ 19:27: Desiderata Too
13 Aug 2002 @ 08:04: Whatever it's about, it's here now
26 Jul 2002 @ 19:39: Am I cynical, yet?
5 Jun 2002 @ 18:19: I would never post trivia here.

[< Back] [WillowBear's Amble] [PermaLink]?