A Question of Honor

Yes. Sign up to learn at you-may-be-an-idiot.com

This. Is funny.

If I understood one of your posts, I might have responded.

Did I miss a sentence or two?

I think you made that up.

Ok AlCzervik, then you are a cynic. I am not.

You remind me of someone I used to know for some reason.

cjett ?

The way I see it anyone with little faith in morals, ethics, or honor is likely to have a low opinion of justice also.  Rather than referencing a philosopher who comes to mind I will ask a question of honor (I happen to believe the word honor to even have a slight relation to the word honesty).  I welcome any responses to the question, however anybody who has demonstrated a low opinion of honor should understand that I may completely disregard your responses.  For why should I believe your comment to have any value if you speak on a subject that you previously displayed is unintelligible to you?  Here is the question:

If someone sets a trap for you is it dishonorable to use it against that one? If so, why?

Is it an honorable cake?

According to Socrates:

"One ought not to return a wrong to any person, whatever the provocation."

Here's an excerpt from Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy:

"[Socrates] thinks the search for knowledge of the utmost importance.  He maintains that no man sins wittingly," (I disagree with that last) "and therefore only knowledge is needed to make all men perfectly virtuous.

"The close connection between virtue and knowledge is characteristic of Socrates and Plato.  To some degree, it exists in all Greek thought, as opposed to that of Christianity.  In Christian ethics, a pure heart is the essential, and is at least as likely to be found among the ignorant as among the learned."

Anyone who knows Socrates also knows he often used the dialectic method, described by Russell as:  

"The method of seeking knowledge by question and answer."  This he states is: "suitable for some questions and unsuitable for others.  Perhaps this helped to determine Plato's inquiries, which were, for the most part, such as could be dealt with in this way.

"The matters that are suitable for treatment by the Socratic method are those to which we have already enough knowledge to come to a right conclusion, but have failed, through confusion of thought or lack of analysis, to make the best logical use of what we know.  A question such as "what is justice?" is eminently suited for discussion in a Platonic dialogue.  We all freely use the word "just" and "unjust," and, by examining the ways in which we use them, we can arrive inductively at the definition that will best suit with usage.  All that is needed is knowledge of how the words in question are used."

You think Socrates was right?

Hmm... a bit short. Hegel wrote thousands of pages about it.

Socrates was executed around 399 B.C. long before Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's (1770-1831) time.

Of course, but Hegel was the first to write a theory about dialectics (ie two conflicting theses that resolve into a third new one, with gross simplification).

The Socrates/Plato method, which I believe to be called more properly maieutic (from the Greek "to help to give birth") was more "artisanal" dialectics.

"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me"    

Sorry old chaps, I was a bit bored. 

I see The Winds Of Bore continue to howl on unchecked...

On the plus side, I liked kayak's pun.  And that cake looks positively yummy.

Andy. I would love to take the credit for that quote but it was said by Kenneth Williams in a Carry On film. Might have been in Carry on Cleo.

I'll split the cake with you, 60/40 ;)

I've never seen one of those things.  There's about a kajillion of em though. Are they worth watching?  They always seemed like they would be too...er, English (sorry). 

Worth a look!

(But neither of them are Kenneth Williams:)

I don't think it's catching.

... although you can't be too careful.