Socrates Debate

Since I put so much effort towards this I felt like putting it up for display:

Aristotle’s Topical Method (shortened version dictated by necessity)

Conjecture:

• What Exists?
o A collection of dialogues by his student Plato
o A consistency in his tone and method throughout Plato’s dialogues
o A physical image that rarely varies from nothing less than ugly
o Mentions from numerous authors that throughout create a rather consistent image of Socrates as a being and a mind (Plato, Aristophanes… and Xenophon)

• What does not exist?
Any concrete evidence that indicates Socrates’ existence in the form of his own writings has been lost or never existed at all.

• What is the size or extent as to what exists?
o Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to Plato… many of which mention his admired teacher Socrates.
o Plato’s description of Socrates stands deliberately different from Aristophanes’ as it was that Plato himself was his teacher’s most successful pupil.
o Socrates was regarded as less than strapping no matter the occasion aside from a few paintings and statues where the maker could not bear the pain of destroying their conception.
o Although Aristophanes was a counterpoint figure (aka critic) he painted a picture of Socrates that fit with all of the others, although from a differing point of view than that of his admirers. In that time Socrates quick wit and deep thought could blow your mind with discussion, while Aristophanes could put your back in your seat or leave you hanging on the edge of your chair from the drama stage… thus they are two techniques for ‘battle of the wits’ in public forum Athenian style. Socrates’ students maintained a consistency that has passed down through the ages as a timeless method to accessing wisdom and greater understanding of our existence as a whole.

Degree:

• Putting into question the degree of likelihood that a real individual could make this sort of profound difference within society for so long versus the degree of likelihood that an imaginary individual could have this breadth of impact would lead one to believe that it is quite unlikely that Plato and Socrates were as one.

• The degree of likelihood would likewise help one surmise that during this time of intense social diversity 3 separate and equally abstract individuals could have never come to an agreement on an ‘ideal figure of philosophy’ (even a criticized ‘ideal figure of philosophy) to have written about, pondered upon, or discussed in depth.

• The degree of likelihood that Plato could be so profound in his own right as well as in ‘Socrates’ right would help one to conclude that no one man could possess such a powerful mind… especially given that no man before or since has achieved the level of influence as either individually.
Possibility:

• What is possible?

o It is possible that Socrates is a fictional character that embodies a ‘sign of the times’ however it is quite unlikely considering the various consistencies that paint a very deep picture (however unattractive) of Socrates.
o It is possible that Socrates indeed existed and due to some rather confusing writings from his student existed in both actuality and in literary occurrence.
o It is possible that the definition of existence is flexible enough that we could say he existed at all… even though he may never have been a human being.
o It is possible that Socrates was a healthy blend of how everyone described him and indeed existed as a man of flesh and blood.

• What is impossible?

o Unless some major archaeological find presents us with a vast amount of concrete evidence that Socrates existed as a man we will never truly know.
o It is impossible to conceive that in one form or another Socrates did not exist.
o It is impossible to devise a solution to a problem that offers no actual evidence except the kind that, when scrutinized, begins mounting the questions one atop the other. Therefore a logical point of stasis would be that IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER SOCRATES DID EXIST.

p.s. has anyone watched Bill and Ted...?