What Philosophy Is (Part 2)

We need more ready-made memes like "Orwellian" everyone knows what that is, an' if you don’t - read, yah ferkin moron. But when I say "Heidegger's ground" I want it to be universally understood, so we don't have to dig into a bunch of his books. 

Or "the other." Everyone should know what Sartre meant, I hope. So, starting with basic philosophy, Socrates - there're only three or four things I know about him - dialogues, the cave, and his death

In no particular order, let’s do dialogue, the Socratic method. My concern isn’t so much the method of reasoning - as the method of dialogue. If I ask the questions and provide the answers, then we’re gonna get to QED pdq, cuz...duh. But if there’s a second person or many involved, we get real dialogue; and "thus it is demonstrated" is more precarious or hopefully, well-earned.

Used to do that when I’se a kid. People’d use their if...then arguments, and I’d think “if I replace any one of your variables, it tho’s a monkey wrench into the whole damn thing.” So, dialogue forces honest answers, cooperative disagreement, a lot of other stuff, and what lecturing teachers hate - having to hold the entirety of your argument in your head at all times, so as to defend it from attack or interruption from an inquisitive student. Believe me, that’s a bitch, and folks readily dismiss it with “aint goin down that rabbit hole.” Cuz tangential thoughts have unlimited corridors. (But I regress, as Dylan would say.)

Secondly, Socrates’ death - as Plato describes it - he’s on trial for disavowing the gods, and is sentenced to death. Socrates is the hero of free-thinkers, but what is glossed over is the state's position. Necessary law and order derive and maintain their status from their godly origins. To reject Zeus is also a rejection of supreme authority, and all the other paradigms of the state as represented by the fictitious gods - love, wisdom, war, justice - you name it.

Thus the state may not believe in these fanciful mythological gods either, but they don’t want anarchy. So Soc’kee’s death is almost pre-ordained - a natural evolution in human development. He’s not just the folk hero of free-thinkers, he’s also a guy who has the luxury of rebelling in the comfort and safety provided by the state, so eloquently stated by Col Jessup to Lt Kaffee: “I'd rather you just thank me.”

Then, the allegory of the cave, which I truly love cuz it’s different for me in some ways. We think of it as the imperfect reflection of images on the wall, caused by the fire. But to me, the ideal chair isn’t - the perfect concept of a poor reflection. It’s the chair’s purpose that is ideal. You sit on the damn thing. It has a function that’s very distinct from standing or sitting on the ground. It is a concept; and it’s far from unknowable, just that we take it for granted and don’t hold the real concept in our minds. Which of course is quite different for objects like “chair” as opposed to people. Or is it?

Anyway, consider chair - to sit more comfortably in. It could be a posh chair or an ornate chair, which have added meanings - I got money, I’m somebody - I got good taste, I’m sophisticated. These add or detract from my ideal concept of chair but are so much more widely prevalent, my ideal is all but lost. Your car gets you to and from. Wot the fock do I care how much it cost? All those other things it says about you, I might take as a negative, y’know? But you probably wouldn’t care cuz most people would only acknowledge all the peripheral meanings.

Which is when where and how - chair and human - devolve into the same thing.