Відео

According to the books I’ve read he attempted to use them because he had a hard time fighting against war elephants. What kind of defense maneuver is supposed to handle an elephant charge? But when he tried to use them it went terribly wrong. Apparently elephants are scared of horses. They don’t mix well. He stopped after they started turning around out of fear in the chaos and charging his own people. That was the allusion

It’s all inherently connected, but the division of “meaningful utterances” into three parts is coming from a primary source fragment. Lekta would be the bridge between linguistics and logic. You could connect the various diagrams: the mind and the faculty of speech, the ontological diagram, etc.

Yes

Nah. I made a joke out of it obviously, but every source I have read says hemlock, which was not uncommon. He had his reasons for choosing death. He laid them out in Cato. Now how much of that dialogue is made up by Plato? I don’t know, but it is clear based on other sources as well as Plato that Socrates could have gotten away with a lesser charge, but basically forced everyone’s hand, given what the Athenian law was. Two punishments are purposed, one extreme one and then Socrates had the chance to propose a lesser punishment that seemed fair. He proposed they pay him and give him free food (that’s related to what they give a victor. It was something the Athenians did to honor people). Everyone of course went with the death sentence via Hemlock. After that he could have run away. He was a threat to the stability of their democracy, but he wasn’t close with the 30 tyrants. They wouldn’t have pursued him, but he chose to take the hemlock. Plato gives his reasons in Cato. Part of it was him making a statement. The Athenian democrats were unique in how much they valued liberty, but it was a volatile and unstable direct democratic system. Someone challenging authority and criticizing democracy as they are desperately trying to keep it together is a problem. They usually just ostracized or exiled people rather than killing them. Socrates could have easily proposed exile

@@ThusSpokeHaven my mistake. it was the bronze bull as well.

As in he was sentenced to die via hemlock and the bronze bull? That doesn’t make much sense. That’s a waste of good hemlock. Where’s your source on that? I’ve never read that anywhere (Genuine well intentioned question. If I’m wrong it’s important I correct myself in the future)

@@ThusSpokeHaven no you were right. Also I called it the iron bull when it was the bronze bull.

Got it. It’s wild that they did that stuff, but they didn’t have anything like our modern police forces, so they had to dissuade extreme crimes somehow. They usually only did that type of thing in cases of intentional murder or other offenses of that nature

I had something similar planned for the second one pulling together various stoic ideas

@@ThusSpokeHaven Definitely maintain that as a theme, both narratively within the video structure, and as a practical tool for others Stoics, new or old or a Sage themselves to make use of in the twice daily meditations a good Stoic spends time on. I’ve used your video twice since the reupload to meditate on being pressured by others to do what you know is the wrong (if popular) choice as a matter of Justice (Dikaiosûne), Wisdom (Phronêsis), Andreia (Courage), and Temperance (Sophrosûne) all in one event. Events that often form pivot points for our fate, as we discussed. Events that form new chains of causality that were born in spite of Virtue, rather than in pursuit of it. How much worse off we usually all are for people who never reflect on this tendency - doubly so when the people we let pressure us are known to us as fools. Quintuply so when we know that they’re fools and do it anyway. We’ve all sinned as such. The idea is to interrogate the thinking you portray in the story as well as my own, and spot the hamartanō.

If you’re willing you should send me your email and I’ll send you the unlisted video before publishing, so you can give me your thoughts before I make it public

​@@ThusSpokeHaven It would be a great honor to help ensure the presentation of any video on Stoic philosophy - especially its history and Ethics and Logic are well-cited, truthful, and researched enough to proof it as much as possible before presenting it to the Stoa of the digital age and the wider audience of humanity. This is how we fight back against "stoicism" and the "Broicism" heresy. Truth. Accessible content where people can learn easily.

@militusstoica Agreed. My goal is to elevate it and do the philosophy justice, while making it as accessible and engaging as possible. My email is thusspokehaven@gmail.com if you want to establish contact

The future videos will be in more depth, so quality should improve

You’ve clearly studied stoicism quite a bit. What were your thoughts on my presentation on their notion of fate? Most of the people I read argued that it was simply based on the idea of causal determinism, which I disagreed with.

@@ThusSpokeHaven Oh boy - Fate and Stoicism. Another one of the infamous Stoic Paradoxes. I’m not sure if I would say Epictetus or Seneca were probably the best at slicing through these - they both understood these sorts of paradoxes were both natural, but also in needing of explanation. I think my view of Fate was actually changed by your interpretation. I admit that I gave it less thought than more practical things that Stoicism offers like Ethics. But I literally use the Nietzsche phrase “Amor Fati” several times a day to describe Stoic embracing of fate, good or bad. I try to remind myself that what is happening to me can be turned towards the good of my mind and spirit regardless of whether it seemed painful or pleasant. But that’s just a way to accept things that happen to me. I always knew we had “Free Will”, and the Stoics constantly argued as much, as you well know. They also argued that the fate of all things was predestined. The idea that we “predestined” ourselves through a chain of causality is something I don’t feel like can be logically disproven. I do, at the same time, feel that human agency/free will is *not* mutually exclusive with the wider world having its own fate decided by ITS architect - God, Theos, Nature, the sacred Logos - whatever name you like works. We are all of us fated to certain things. We will all age and die. Everything and everyone we love will die and crumble into the dust someday. Whether you were a Pharoah 3,000 years ago ruling over all you could see, or a slave in the court being whipped to work faster to finish some construction project for them - all humans die, and all buildings crumble. All nations will eventually return to the dust when the people and places that constitute it die and have their atoms returned to the constituent atoms of the universe. We are, all of us, fated to this. But at the same time, we have the choice to determine how we fill that relatively short span of our lives. We can shape our fate to be a life well lived in which the manner that we live in affords us bountiful Joy; or Chara (a different thing from a life spent chasing pleasures, or Hedonia). We can live a life that results in Ataraxia; in tranquil acceptance with our lives. We can change the fate of how we perceive that life by changing the way we react to it, and if we do so correctly, happiness will ENSUE. As Dr. Viktor Frankl said, it cannot be PURSUED. So, I suppose, just thinking out loud, that your idea of a sort of compartmentalized fate makes a lot of sense to me. We have a small span of time, relatively speaking, in which to live. In which to make decisions that determine the nature of our fate (and ripples out in a causal chain to change the fates of countless others in the process). We control how we react within that span of time. We rarely control the events taking place within that span as much as we want to think, though. It’s a tough one, man. But I think until someone lays out a better logical proof than you did here, I follow your thinking on this. Just working through it out loud here, so forgive me for the rambling nature of this response…

@@ThusSpokeHaven One thing I love about Stoicism is that it’s always got some wiggle room for stuff like this. The only things you can’t really move are the Dichotomy of Control, Areté/Virtus/Cardinal Virtues, and the idea of the Logos as something sacred and transcendent. Everything else can be played with. And you did that well on the Fate argument here. Have you read much about Aristo of Ceos?

@militustoica No. I’ll have to look into it. I read through the main primary sources on early stoic thought (Sextus Empiricus, Diogenes Laertius, Cicero, etc.) and I’m currently rereading Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius for this next one

I went into this as an Enlightenment era Deist and see no real changes moving from Deism to Stoic Pantheism. I’m not even sure they are meaningfully different.

Thank you for the support over the years

Yeah fixed some minor mistakes

I appreciate that. I trained an AI model with my concept and character art, then highly edited, drew over, and animated some of what it generated slightly. AI art still sucks most of the time, but you can rescue it and it’s a good starting point. It saves a ton of time

I fear for your friends and family