Was Socrates Actually Ugly?

[GoldenxChild1]

I am having a disagreement with my professor.

After going over The Republic by Plato, I am convinced that the Cave Analogy is not just an allegory to describe an educational reformation for select individuals to bring about the Philosopher King, nor just an epistemological and ontological idea relative to Plato's Divided Line, but it is a description of an evolutionary potential for those by their nature are destined to escape their Doxa, or shadows in the cave, and step into the light of the sun to experience true forms.

My thesis was that Plato was really promoting (1) an evolutionary idea for select human beings and after that, the whole, and (2) advocating for an overhaul of Athenian democracy in favor of a divine monarchy or aristocracy.

I suggested that Plato was selective for finding this potential philosopher because yes, the character of the soul as my professor admits, but also the genetic quality as the soul descends into physical spheres.

Naturally, he does not agree with my evolutionary or generic correlations.

He also implied that since Socrates was ugly but was obviously a beautiful and powerful soul, it disproves that the body and the soul are one, and thus discrediting my entire thesis.

Am I wrong to The Republic like this?

 

[GoldenxChild1]

Sorry for the typos

 

[Hidden Warrior]

If you are in school, from personal experience, avoid as much as you can talking about genetics, or similar concepts near Spiritual Satanism, especially with professors.
You probably will not be able to change their mind, and if you want to make them believe in what you say, you have to state something that they can find in some books or trusted source (and we know the history on which they are based...) .
When they've being programmed to think in a specific way, don't waste your precious time and energies into them.

When I was younger, new to Satanism and recently learned about holocaust falsities, I tried to talk with my history teacher. I didn't go well.
No matter if I was citing a book written by an MIT professor, for such things, the mind of an NPC will not handle such drastic new information.
Anyway, I learned from that mistake.

 

[CrimsonMonarch]

I don't think you're wrong in your thesis, as The Republic does include specific references to eugenicist measures that Plato considered appropriate to maintain the city at an optimal level, mainly relating to how the Guardian Souls should reproduce.
I assume you know that Guardian Souls are those people whose qualities allowed them to be considered the premier caste. They were usually the ones tasked with safeguarding the cities or do war if needed, if I remember well (it's been a while since I read it so I'm typing what I can remember).
For these people Plato proposed basic eugenics: people of similar genetic fitness should mate and that was about it. "Defective" children, or those who were not up to par, would probably be relegated down to the working class.

However, while eugenics does happen, keep in mind in that Plato did in fact separate the body and soul. In some of his other works, but mainly Phaedo (I think), he states that the soul is the life force itself, and that it is this that gives the body the ability to move. The souls is a "self-mover", which would imply that the body is just inert matter if there is no soul to host.

I also tend to disagree on what you say about possessing certain natural qualities that would allow someone to abandon the cave. This may be an interpretation, but Plato wanted to illustrate, more than anything, how education allows most anyone to leave the cave and live in Truth, not so much that only a few select members can do it. How many humans must've had souls with potential to leave the cave (and maybe even govern like a Philosopher King), but couldn't, because there was no one to educate him or her. That is why those who see the Light must return to the cave to teach the rest. Whether they follow is debatable, but I don't think it is because of their lack of capacity, as if they had been educated they would've left previously.

Whether Socrates was ugly or not is irrelevant, I think, because of what I typed regarding the soul-body dynamic.

In conclusion, I agree with your second thesis, I disagree with the first thesis, but I don't think your proffesor is 100% right either. The allegory of the cave is not about eugenics, in my opinion, but Plato, like most Greek thinkers, did see value in eugenics and had specific measures in mind in books such as the Republic. The most important thing for Plato was the soul, and the pursuit of knowledge to reach the higher planes of existence and the world of the ideas. Yet the physical body is also pretty important, and there is value in genetics, which they understood. So hey, I've reached the JoS again lmao.

Hope this helps, I'm not sure if I just ranted or actually provided some decent perspective.
Be careful when speaking about eugenics with others, some don't take it very well, and even if you find good arguments, changing their mind might be impossible if they're closed to the idea.

 

[Ancestors666]

I am having a disagreement with my professor.

After going over The Republic by Plato, I am convinced that the Cave Analogy is not just an allegory to describe an educational reformation for select individuals to bring about the Philosopher King, nor just an epistemological and ontological idea relative to Plato's Divided Line, but it is a description of an evolutionary potential for those by their nature are destined to escape their Doxa, or shadows in the cave, and step into the light of the sun to experience true forms.

My thesis was that Plato was really promoting (1) an evolutionary idea for select human beings and after that, the whole, and (2) advocating for an overhaul of Athenian democracy in favor of a divine monarchy or aristocracy.

I suggested that Plato was selective for finding this potential philosopher because yes, the character of the soul as my professor admits, but also the genetic quality as the soul descends into physical spheres.

Naturally, he does not agree with my evolutionary or generic correlations.

He also implied that since Socrates was ugly but was obviously a beautiful and powerful soul, it disproves that the body and the soul are one, and thus discrediting my entire thesis.

Am I wrong to The Republic like this?

Actually the concept of the "Allegory of the Cave" plato was trying to explaint how some individuals are caged in darkness because they're in that Cave where there's no light and only the shadows of realities exist there, These people can't think beyond, because their viewing of perceptions ends around the walls of the "Cave".
Further; If these people are allowed to leave the Cave and see the limelight, they will experienced true knowledge and discovered the truth about human existence.
A good example of this generic illustrations are we the Satanists, We are Unique, Informed, knowledgeable and exposed to ideas that are hidden from the masses.
Hail Satan

 

[Rroco88]

I am having a disagreement with my professor.

After going over The Republic by Plato, I am convinced that the Cave Analogy is not just an allegory to describe an educational reformation for select individuals to bring about the Philosopher King, nor just an epistemological and ontological idea relative to Plato's Divided Line, but it is a description of an evolutionary potential for those by their nature are destined to escape their Doxa, or shadows in the cave, and step into the light of the sun to experience true forms.

My thesis was that Plato was really promoting (1) an evolutionary idea for select human beings and after that, the whole, and (2) advocating for an overhaul of Athenian democracy in favor of a divine monarchy or aristocracy.

I suggested that Plato was selective for finding this potential philosopher because yes, the character of the soul as my professor admits, but also the genetic quality as the soul descends into physical spheres.

Naturally, he does not agree with my evolutionary or generic correlations.

He also implied that since Socrates was ugly but was obviously a beautiful and powerful soul, it disproves that the body and the soul are one, and thus discrediting my entire thesis.

Am I wrong to The Republic like this?

You were both right in your own way. Everyone has their own point of view. I could see a 9 while someone sitting in front of me could see a 6, and we are both right, in our own ways.

It's true that the cave allegory does refer to evolving, and achieving new ways of seeing the world, a higher consciousnesses, however, your professor could have seen it as if you brought the evolution theory, which would be wrong, as we have been created by the Gods.

Remember, people will only see what you say up to their level of understanding, they cannot see further without additional steps, and for most, their ego will not let them, as it would be the case of a professor talking to a student in front of the whole class. For the average person, the ego is greater than rationality unfortunately.

The higher the plane of consciousness you're in, the more different you see the world, even if it is the same world you're seeing, different people can see it completely different from each other. Just like in the cave allegory, just like in the "I see 9, he sees 6". This is also a scientific concept in quantum physics, saying how all these worlds co-exist at the same time.

Me personally, I loved debates with teachers in school, so I could see their point of view, as well as others', just make sure to not cause yourself problems. Might as well open the eyes of other students regarding some subjects. The higher the consciousness, the closer to the truth

As of Socrates being "ugly", I would have shown him a sculpture of him, showing his built body in probably better shape than most people nowadays even if his face was visibly old, and how the concept of beauty is denaturated.

 

[GoldenxChild1]

When I have time today, I will reply to each of you!

I suppose my motivations are highly I influenced by National Socialism, so that could explain my evolutionary insinuations. An unorthodox evolution of the mind, body, and soul. Starting with (1) a natural predisposition, and (2) the educational curriculum.

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

I never heard that he was ugly.

The health or strength of your soul is directly connected with the health of the body. But how physically attractive you are is not necessarily connected to health. Of course being very unhealthy is unattractive. But I mean things like the shape of your face or general features are created by astrological influences, and often have no relation to health. And of course I am highly attracted to certain physical characteristics of a woman that other people would not be as attracted to, and other people are attracted to characteristics that I am not. What features you are attracted to are also influenced by astrological forces and past life experiences and will be different for everyone.

 

[GoldenxChild1]

If you are in school, from personal experience, avoid as much as you can talking about genetics, or similar concepts near Spiritual Satanism, especially with professors.
You probably will not be able to change their mind, and if you want to make them believe in what you say, you have to state something that they can find in some books or trusted source (and we know the history on which they are based...) .
When they've being programmed to think in a specific way, don't waste your precious time and energies into them.

When I was younger, new to Satanism and recently learned about holocaust falsities, I tried to talk with my history teacher. I didn't go well.
No matter if I was citing a book written by an MIT professor, for such things, the mind of an NPC will not handle such drastic new information.
Anyway, I learned from that mistake.

Very true! I was extremely cautious and didn't suggest that I was anything more than a student with a scientific slant majoring in Psych with some mythological ideas. Fortunately, most people don't immediately assume that since someone is talking about blood or genetics they must be a Nazi, although I am haha.

 

[GoldenxChild1]

I don't think you're wrong in your thesis, as The Republic does include specific references to eugenicist measures that Plato considered appropriate to maintain the city at an optimal level, mainly relating to how the Guardian Souls should reproduce.
I assume you know that Guardian Souls are those people whose qualities allowed them to be considered the premier caste. They were usually the ones tasked with safeguarding the cities or do war if needed, if I remember well (it's been a while since I read it so I'm typing what I can remember).
For these people Plato proposed basic eugenics: people of similar genetic fitness should mate and that was about it. "Defective" children, or those who were not up to par, would probably be relegated down to the working class.

However, while eugenics does happen, keep in mind in that Plato did in fact separate the body and soul. In some of his other works, but mainly Phaedo (I think), he states that the soul is the life force itself, and that it is this that gives the body the ability to move. The souls is a "self-mover", which would imply that the body is just inert matter if there is no soul to host.

I also tend to disagree on what you say about possessing certain natural qualities that would allow someone to abandon the cave. This may be an interpretation, but Plato wanted to illustrate, more than anything, how education allows most anyone to leave the cave and live in Truth, not so much that only a few select members can do it. How many humans must've had souls with potential to leave the cave (and maybe even govern like a Philosopher King), but couldn't, because there was no one to educate him or her. That is why those who see the Light must return to the cave to teach the rest. Whether they follow is debatable, but I don't think it is because of their lack of capacity, as if they had been educated they would've left previously.

Whether Socrates was ugly or not is irrelevant, I think, because of what I typed regarding the soul-body dynamic.

In conclusion, I agree with your second thesis, I disagree with the first thesis, but I don't think your proffesor is 100% right either. The allegory of the cave is not about eugenics, in my opinion, but Plato, like most Greek thinkers, did see value in eugenics and had specific measures in mind in books such as the Republic. The most important thing for Plato was the soul, and the pursuit of knowledge to reach the higher planes of existence and the world of the ideas. Yet the physical body is also pretty important, and there is value in genetics, which they understood. So hey, I've reached the JoS again lmao.

Hope this helps, I'm not sure if I just ranted or actually provided some decent perspective.
Be careful when speaking about eugenics with others, some don't take it very well, and even if you find good arguments, changing their mind might be impossible if they're closed to the idea.

Thanks for the reply. No, you did not rant and I appreciate your take on it.

I am not sure how long you've been with the JOS, but in our view, the body and soul are really one and the same. Basically, as the soul receives physical representation, it manifests as the body - the spirit made flesh.

Clearly, we know this to be true, but others would perceive this outlandish, yet I was still hoping my professor would see reason.

I only got a B - on the essay. I blame it on my writing skill though. He may have appreciated the ideas had I expressed them better, as that IS my job.

Lastly, Plato 100% introduced dualism, but along with The Republic, to me atheist, he acknowledged that the nature of birth, which is the blood, matters. So I inferred that the souls character is shown through the body, as we see it here at the Joy of Satan.

 

[GoldenxChild1]

Actually the concept of the "Allegory of the Cave" plato was trying to explaint how some individuals are caged in darkness because they're in that Cave where there's no light and only the shadows of realities exist there, These people can't think beyond, because their viewing of perceptions ends around the walls of the "Cave".
Further; If these people are allowed to leave the Cave and see the limelight, they will experienced true knowledge and discovered the truth about human existence.
A good example of this generic illustrations are we the Satanists, We are Unique, Informed, knowledgeable and exposed to ideas that are hidden from the masses.
Hail Satan

Yes, I agree most definitely. However, my inferences, to me, still apply on top of that allegory.

 

[GoldenxChild1]

You were both right in your own way. Everyone has their own point of view. I could see a 9 while someone sitting in front of me could see a 6, and we are both right, in our own ways.

It's true that the cave allegory does refer to evolving, and achieving new ways of seeing the world, a higher consciousnesses, however, your professor could have seen it as if you brought the evolution theory, which would be wrong, as we have been created by the Gods.

Remember, people will only see what you say up to their level of understanding, they cannot see further without additional steps, and for most, their ego will not let them, as it would be the case of a professor talking to a student in front of the whole class. For the average person, the ego is greater than rationality unfortunately.

The higher the plane of consciousness you're in, the more different you see the world, even if it is the same world you're seeing, different people can see it completely different from each other. Just like in the cave allegory, just like in the "I see 9, he sees 6". This is also a scientific concept in quantum physics, saying how all these worlds co-exist at the same time.

Me personally, I loved debates with teachers in school, so I could see their point of view, as well as others', just make sure to not cause yourself problems. Might as well open the eyes of other students regarding some subjects. The higher the consciousness, the closer to the truth

As of Socrates being "ugly", I would have shown him a sculpture of him, showing his built body in probably better shape than most people nowadays even if his face was visibly old, and how the concept of beauty is denaturated.

Thanks for your thoughts. However, one thing I noticed you said is that since that Gods created us we did not evolve. This is incorrect in the sense that the Gods did create us, but also gave us knowledge to accelerate our evolutionary potential. When I say evolution, I am NOT referring to Darwinism, but an unorthodox evolution of the mind, body, and soul.

Here, look at this:
https://joyofsatan.org/Virtue_AdvanceEvolve.html

 

[CrimsonMonarch]

Thanks for the reply. No, you did not rant and I appreciate your take on it.

I am not sure how long you've been with the JOS, but in our view, the body and soul are really one and the same. Basically, as the soul receives physical representation, it manifests as the body - the spirit made flesh.

Clearly, we know this to be true, but others would perceive this outlandish, yet I was still hoping my professor would see reason.

I only got a B - on the essay. I blame it on my writing skill though. He may have appreciated the ideas had I expressed them better, as that IS my job.

Lastly, Plato 100% introduced dualism, but along with The Republic, to me atheist, he acknowledged that the nature of birth, which is the blood, matters. So I inferred that the souls character is shown through the body, as we see it here at the Joy of Satan.

I've dedicated about 4 months ago, which is when I found the JoS, so I can be considered somewhat new still.
I do agree with what you say, the body is a reflection of the soul. When I mentioned the separation of the body and soul I was conveying Plato's perspective. Considering the 3-way nature of the soul and Plato's interest in advancement and progress to a higher ideal, it is not far fetched to think that he may have proposed what we know. Taking Plato's works as a whole can sometimes confuse me, since Phaedo or Parmenides were written before the Republic, and this one was written before the Laws for example, so his perspective might have evolved with time, I cannot say I've read enough to know for certain.
To be honest, the topic is interesting, but quite hard to express in words that would adequately capture what we want to convey, so while it is your job, it's quite a tough one, wish you the best there


Are you majoring in philosophy/psychology by any chance? If you've read books on the topic I'd like to know which books you recommend. I've read a bit of philosophy but it's hard to find the next read. I wanted to get back into reading in my spare time, and philosophy is as good a topic as most, if not better.

 

[Rroco88]

Thanks for your thoughts. However, one thing I noticed you said is that since that Gods created us we did not evolve. This is incorrect in the sense that the Gods did create us, but also gave us knowledge to accelerate our evolutionary potential. When I say evolution, I am NOT referring to Darwinism, but an unorthodox evolution of the mind, body, and soul.

Here, look at this:
https://joyofsatan.org/Virtue_AdvanceEvolve.html

Sure, it has been a misunderstanding there. I was referring to the evolution theory which says we evolved from monkeys, which I said was definitely not true, because we were created by the Gods.

Saying your teacher might have took it as if you were referring to it, yet I can't know for sure if this is the case since I haven't been there and from what you said it isn't clear.

Everything else I have said in the above message is just further analysing the cave analogy as an allegory for evolution, like you said it is as well, and going a little further on the different perspectives on the same world from different planes of consciousness.

 

[GoldenxChild1]

I've dedicated about 4 months ago, which is when I found the JoS, so I can be considered somewhat new still.
I do agree with what you say, the body is a reflection of the soul. When I mentioned the separation of the body and soul I was conveying Plato's perspective. Considering the 3-way nature of the soul and Plato's interest in advancement and progress to a higher ideal, it is not far fetched to think that he may have proposed what we know. Taking Plato's works as a whole can sometimes confuse me, since Phaedo or Parmenides were written before the Republic, and this one was written before the Laws for example, so his perspective might have evolved with time, I cannot say I've read enough to know for certain.
To be honest, the topic is interesting, but quite hard to express in words that would adequately capture what we want to convey, so while it is your job, it's quite a tough one, wish you the best there


Are you majoring in philosophy/psychology by any chance? If you've read books on the topic I'd like to know which books you recommend. I've read a bit of philosophy but it's hard to find the next read. I wanted to get back into reading in my spare time, and philosophy is as good a topic as most, if not better.

My Major is Psychology and my Minor is Philosophy. I have not read enough material to recommend any text concerning metaphysical philosophy, but I am about to get into Aristotles Metaphysics, so we'll see. (Hopefully I do better)

Most of my philosophical exploration has been in Stoicism, and for that, I recommend Meditations my Marcus Aurelius and the Encirdion by Epictetus. However, these are not concerned with the questions we have been asking, but rather practical philosophy.