Everything that I’ve read so far says the “coup” you’re referring to was a result of the Spartans after the Peloponnesian war. You haven’t substantiated Socrates or Plato’s involvement with any sources that even suggest that.
It’s not at all like the civil war because it happened millennia ago with only fragmentary evidence. We have far more records from the civil war era due to it only having been a couple hundred years ago, which isn’t that long in the grand scheme of things.
Aristotle was Alexander’s tutor, yes, but Plato had no involvement with Alexander and the trial and execution of Socrates happened long before Alexander was even born. Plato and Aristotle are diametrically opposed philosophically, so bringing up Aristotle’s involvement with Alexander has zero bearing on the philosophy of either Plato or Socrates.
Plus, the modern sciences owe far more to Aristotle than he’s given credit for, so if tutoring Alexander the Great is such a demerit then we have to throw out basically all human inquiry that took place in the western world from medieval scholasticism to the modern scientific method. That would be a pretty severe ad hominem, but I guess if you’re going that far then you’d have to throw out the field of logic too, so then you can commit all the fallacies you want because hey, the father of systemic logic tutored a Macedonian imperialist so all the fundamentals of logic must be flawed, right?
Also, worth noting (again), in his apology he never denounced any of his students that committed the genocide. and while he did defy them when asked to provide info on people to kill, he was spared by the tyrants.
Several of the Thirty had been students of Socrates, but there is also a record of their falling out.
The reference points to Xenophon’s Memorobilia.
Husserl taught Heidegger, and Heidegger became a nazi, but that doesn’t make Husserl a nazi. In fact, Husserl was Jewish and had to flee nazi Germany. So you see, a person isn’t necessarily responsible for the things one’s pupil does.
And from the “Socrates and the thirty” section on the thirty tyrants page:
In his Memorabilia (Bk 1, Ch 2), Xenophon reports a contentious confrontation between Socrates and the Thirty, Critias included. Socrates is summoned before the group and ordered not to instruct or speak to anyone, whereupon Socrates mocks the order by asking sarcastically whether he will be allowed to ask to buy food in the marketplace. Xenophon uses the episode to illustrate both Socrates’ own critique of the slaughtering of Athenian citizens by the Thirty, as well as make the case that the relationship between Critias and Socrates had significantly deteriorated by the time Critias obtained power.
The only quotes suggesting he was responsible for the thirty tyrants on either page were from a contemporary writer, and it seems more like speculation than anything else.
There’s really no compelling evidence suggesting that Socrates was responsible for the thirty tyrants or their slaughter of Athenian citizens.
“Corrupting the youth” simply meant teaching them to think for themselves. The “pious” aristocrats didn’t like that sort of thing back then, any more than their ilk like that sort of thing today.
pulling them away from the old religion into his grift.
Let’s invert the dialogue. do you think someone being sentenced to death, and the same someone’s students (whom they failed to denounce or even acknowledge) committing a genocide and a foreign coup, have nothing to do with each other?
Everything that I’ve read so far says the “coup” you’re referring to was a result of the Spartans after the Peloponnesian war. You haven’t substantiated Socrates or Plato’s involvement with any sources that even suggest that.
It’s not at all like the civil war because it happened millennia ago with only fragmentary evidence. We have far more records from the civil war era due to it only having been a couple hundred years ago, which isn’t that long in the grand scheme of things.
Aristotle was Alexander’s tutor, yes, but Plato had no involvement with Alexander and the trial and execution of Socrates happened long before Alexander was even born. Plato and Aristotle are diametrically opposed philosophically, so bringing up Aristotle’s involvement with Alexander has zero bearing on the philosophy of either Plato or Socrates.
Plus, the modern sciences owe far more to Aristotle than he’s given credit for, so if tutoring Alexander the Great is such a demerit then we have to throw out basically all human inquiry that took place in the western world from medieval scholasticism to the modern scientific method. That would be a pretty severe ad hominem, but I guess if you’re going that far then you’d have to throw out the field of logic too, so then you can commit all the fallacies you want because hey, the father of systemic logic tutored a Macedonian imperialist so all the fundamentals of logic must be flawed, right?
the comparison with the civil war was because twats say it was “States rights” while technically true, it was for the States rights to have slaves.
I compared it with Socrates, because his trial was due to corruption of the youth. which meant corrupting them against democracy into violent tyrants.
the wiki on the 30 tyrants literally has a section called “Socrates and the thirty”.
and the wiki on the trial has a section “Association with Alcibiades and the Thirty Tyrants”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates)
Also, worth noting (again), in his apology he never denounced any of his students that committed the genocide. and while he did defy them when asked to provide info on people to kill, he was spared by the tyrants.
From the section in the link you cited:
The reference points to Xenophon’s Memorobilia.
Husserl taught Heidegger, and Heidegger became a nazi, but that doesn’t make Husserl a nazi. In fact, Husserl was Jewish and had to flee nazi Germany. So you see, a person isn’t necessarily responsible for the things one’s pupil does.
And from the “Socrates and the thirty” section on the thirty tyrants page:
The only quotes suggesting he was responsible for the thirty tyrants on either page were from a contemporary writer, and it seems more like speculation than anything else.
There’s really no compelling evidence suggesting that Socrates was responsible for the thirty tyrants or their slaughter of Athenian citizens.
“Corrupting the youth” simply meant teaching them to think for themselves. The “pious” aristocrats didn’t like that sort of thing back then, any more than their ilk like that sort of thing today.
Can you explain how the “introducing new deities” accusation fits into your interpretation of the trial?
pulling them away from the old religion into his grift.
Let’s invert the dialogue. do you think someone being sentenced to death, and the same someone’s students (whom they failed to denounce or even acknowledge) committing a genocide and a foreign coup, have nothing to do with each other?