Socrates, Irony and Soulmates

Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.), the founder of the Socratic sect, the father of Philosophy, fundamentally a Skeptic, did not force his opinions on others. Instead, his method of questioning enabled others to walk through and share their opinions on philosophical constructs. According to Plutarch, Socrates considered the entire world a school of virtue, and therefore appropriate for teaching. He was the first to conceive of the soul existing within the body - prior to which, souls were commonly considered disembodied beings who hung out at the entrance of the otherworld. Recall, in Ancient Greece mythology, the otherworld was where souls went after death and was the Greek idea of an afterlife. At the moment of death, the soul was transported to the entrance of Hades. For all practical purposes, Socrates rescued the world's souls from Hades and gave them a new habitation and a name (cue author of the Shakespearean plays). 

Like other philosophers of his time, Socrates believed in the preexistence of the soul prior to its immersion inside the body. This soul, he felt, was endowed with all knowledge, but upon entering into material form it became confused and stupefied. Fortunately sensible discourse caused it to reawaken and recover its original knowledge. The only true evil in the world, in this sense, is ignorance. 

Socrates used the rhetorical device of irony to subtly and satirically (hilariously, for him) emphasize the contrast between what we think apparent and what we consider incongruous or irrational. It is through the absurd that Socrates' meaning is inferred.

claims to know nothing

demolishes your argument

Irony comes from the Greek comic character Eiron, a clever underdog who by his wit repeatedly triumphs over the boastful character Alazon. In humor studies, irony is often confused with sarcasm, cynicism, skepticism, or wordplay. For this reason many people fail to 'get' irony, or use the term incorrectly. Irony is a satirist's favorite technique, and one that is difficult to master. 

Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream is an excellent example of ironical love. The four young lovers (Helena, Hermia, Lysander, Demetrius) symbolize the arbitrariness of young love, from the perspective of everyone except the lovers. Hippolyta is a captive bride, while Oberon and Titania are so accustomed to mutual romantic betrayal that their conflict has nothing to do with passion, but instead with protocol of who is in charge of the changeling human child. In this sense, irony, as seen in this play, is when one's object of affection is not in love in return, or when the rejected lover returns, evermore, to bid for one's affections. The ironical dynamics are what give the play its charm.

When asked what Socrates thought of his brilliant satirical irony being used to convey the limiting perspectives found in cynicism and skepticism, as promulgated by his disciple, Antisthenes of Athens (444-365), who later founded the Cynics sect, Socrates had this to say: 

"Not to brag, but before me, souls were disembodied beings at the outskirts of Hades. I saved them by brining them into the body. Essentially speaking, the notion of soulmates would be nonexistent without me. You're welcome." 

Socrates, Descartes, and Marie Antoinette Walk into a Bar Salon

If you are alive today, and are in any way interested in intellectual matters, we probably would have thought we lucky to have come across one another to do more than think and write and fix and do things, we might sit down and wonder what we might really do if we put our brains together to tackle the understanding of Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration and the public's growing curiosity about it in a definitive way or we could marvel over the level of detail in Disney's 55h feature animated film Zootopia ... 

Charles Darwin showed how some emotional phenomena are present in remarkably comparable ways in nonhuman species; William James and Carl Lange advanced an innovative proposal to explain the processing of emotions; Sigmund Freud turned the emotions into the centerpiece of his often singularly twisted inquiry on psychopathological states; and good 'old Charles Sherrington tinkered around with a neurophysiological investigation of the brain circuits involved in emotions. 

Think about the early discussions Sherrington had with anyone would would listen to him? I wonder how many of those goodhearted gals and fellas were too busy to hear what he had to say, totally disinterested in going outside their comfort zone to even hear what he had to say, or simply incapable of taking off with him, through the keyhole. 

If Socrates, Descartes, and Marie Antoinette walked into a bar salon, an all-out attack on the subject of emotion, right there and then, would commence. Socrates would give an exhaustive, resolute explanation of characteristics only recognized when first experienced inside -thus, unheard to an audience. Descartes would blame himself, he'd plunge down that rabbit hole, head first. He'd only stop for tea if he could then think about the stopping for tea and its relation to thoughts theretofore previously never considered, and therefore necessarily worthy of examination, if only for the novelty, which is a must for the flourishing of a mind held hostage in a brain. 

What would Hilary Putnam have to say on the special subject of the brain-in-a-vat and the absence of trees in this artwork? Whatever it was, Socrates and Marie would have drowned out the sound of the discussion with their friendly, lively, and enjoyable discourse. 

It's no wonder Hilary et al got their little feelings hurt and turned around and under the loosely held group called neuroscience gave a resolute two fingers up to emotion research. 

 

True, the psychoanalysts never quite got over it, but a few pharmacologists and psychiatrists concerned with disorders of mood, and their twin cousins: a lone psychologist and neuroscientist, scientifically engineered an interest in the subject so that they'd have a place to share their shots on the subject; err, I mean, "thoughts" on the subject.   

Girl Selling Cupids, 1763

Joseph-Marie Vien

Château de Fontainbleu

Traveling to the head of the Académie Royale in Rome, we look to this larger than life pilasters decorated scene of a beautiful aristocrat woman sitting in the center golden chair, her companion stands behind her as both women give their full attention to the young girl who sits on the floor with a basket of cupids. She shall select the cupid, and chooses the one with the blue wings. The little cupid itself extends his arm, wishing to follow his taste for the lightness of rococo with the grandeur of classical style. 

And what will Little Blue-Winged Cupid find? 

Innovation, emulation, and even resistance, revealing tension at the very heart of the creative approach. And thus returning full circle to Socrates, Descartes, and Antoinette's discussion on the noble states of human emotion. 

@_@ Wow. I'll have what she's having. LOL

Rather than invite judgment, which would have only raised a ruckus, ending in a row, the trio settled in for the evening to consider the mind's natural language, the errors in translating it, and what we can do about it, in terms of extracting as much nectar of the gods as is humanly possible from the experience without overtaxing the human mechanism. 

I hoped to hear more of what they had to say on the subject, and seated myself at the end of the bar with a shot of tequila before me, amen. My stage was set and they returned to their discussion, but I did get a welcoming, attentive, and generous audience when I laughed at the implications of a particular conversation they had on just which map they should consult when navigating the labyrinth of emotions to an imaginary land one calls the dwelling place of the human mind .... 

Yes, Descartes, all these years later people can't help themselves, they're still searching for what it is that operates from within or travels through affecting the proverbial landscape. 

 

Cityscape (1956)

M.C. Escher

Just as expected, all three were eager to engage in a conversation, pose questions, make suggestions, and offer corrections (at this moment, Descartes and Marie pointed toward Socrates, who smiled knowingly in return). In several instances I caught Socrates smiling, the seemingly endless knowing smile he often flashes. With the exception of his personal biases, most of which he is aware or can easily pinpoint when in new territory, he's annoyingly correct. 

Descartes would just squint his eyes as if filtering out the light in his mind's eye. And Marie, she was too busy attending her flock and writing out her correspondence to concern herself with such details. 

Ten short minutes later the situation was radically different. Not long after Descartes conceded to Socrates, did Socrates look to Marie as an example of how to live the good life. To have time to imagine, to dream, to wonder ... set in an edenic landscape, perched upon a hill under a beautiful shady oak tree whilst the children frolic about, skipping stones across the lake, tormenting (only slightly) the ducks who waddle about in toe. 

The natural language of the mind turned their attention to the necessity of each and every human expression, and whether or not hierarchy could be assigned to anything other than personal taste. The subject was greeted with a new attention. Marie was particularly engaged in this lively discussion, and brought petit fours to fuel the mind's insatiable need to expend the higher volumes of energy necessary to disconnect positively from the experience of living to consider the art of it. 

Descartes and Socrates struck up a side conversation on the relation between emotion and reason, both offering exhaustive explanations of every nuance conceivably imagined, only Socrates was able to keep his place in the dialogue without the aide of notecards to find his way back from visiting a tangent. 

Descartes made a joke about keeping record of the categorical twists and turns so that he might later return to the subject, categorize and analyze and publish yet another book on the subject of how one goes about traversing and coming back full circle from a tangent, which he admitted was the basic plot in his book, only readers made it about the subject matter. 

Hopping over the boys' loops of reason, Marie offered a novel idea: How about we leave let alone, and rather than disturb it, commonly assume it is working well so that we might instead turn our sights to novel information, allowing ourselves to fully experience the enterprise of receiving new information before the reason rushes ahead of us telling us what we're seeing and why we're seeing it that way, forever clouding an otherwise sunny disposition. 

She had a good point, I thought. Despite the raised eyebrows Descartes offered, Socrates was game, and the three settled in for what looked like would be a charming, witty, tantalizingly surprising debate. If one were a painter, they'd probably place objects of curiosity about the image, in a right in front of arcadia-type of scene, suitable for reasoning, but in some superficial versions of the work disinterested in human suffering, except for that which is self-imposed. 

There are others who prefer the topic of suffering, but those hopeless romantics heard what they described was a magic pipe being played by a well dressed man in multicolored clothing and they immediately turned around and followed him out of the bar. Last heard they were headed out in search of the legendary town of Hameln. 

Clearly the emotions are not a substitute for reasoning, but in some superficial versions they sure do make a lot of noise, and if you follow them instead of your reason, who knows where you'll end up. 

Precisely, chimed in Marie. 

And for that reason, Socrates, the Trojan-hearted war hero stands guard. To be sure, even Marie's squirrels and birds responded to external threats without thinking anything out of the ordinary for doing so. In effect, the bar was situated in a little refuge, surrounded by animals, adorned by bouquets of flowers. The sole lovers of Marie, upon whom she swooned each and every afternoons she could escape the many requests for her presence. 

A pure pleasure pavilion for her favorites, out of the public eye ... quiet living where friends, children, and on occasion, her suitors could be entertained. Indulging passions for tapestry-making, and rejecting the trappings of royal status, everything was just so, according to how Marie wished it to be. 

And how did she wish it to be? 

Charming, naturally. A place where a personal vision could be discovered in an unspoiled, verdant paradise of the kind so dear to her contemporary, the romantic genius of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In him she recreated the unaffected, country life became her muse through which she walked, dreaming of her personal vision of the natural world. 

Descartes found it utterly charming, and indulged in a remodeling of his own landscape, while Socrates, lied on his side, perched up on one arm, thinking ... while slowly sampling a feast of petit fours Marie left for his delight and enjoyment. 

Marie sought to recreate the landscape of her mind's eye, in doing so gossip flourished. The City Officials passed a decree claiming authority to close down the bar in which she, Descartes, and Socrates invited all willing creative intellectual sorts privileged access. Why only the other day a very disagreeable man ranged against the establishment a whole coterie of ill will, having everyone believe the renaming was a blasphemous act, thus. 

Ignoring him entirely, Marie, Socrates, and Descartes resumed their conversation, surrounded with a living, natural scenery. To this end, they devoted themselves to overseeing work on the subjects at hand, writing to their friends about their intentions. 

All were delighted with the new idea plantings and engaged enthusiastically with their friends. 

With the unpleasants at bay, Marie focused first and foremost on her garden. She did not enjoy the considerations associated with Gabriel's architectural masterpiece, deferring those thoughts to the more industrious among her guests. Instead, she was concerned with the so-called "lesser" arts, the legendary landscape she felt necessary territory to house such a grand and novel philosophical adventure. 

She recruited those with a passion for agriculture to plant for her a living testament to her sense of style, to a style in which human sentimentality naturally flourishes as a gift of gratitude for the few moments in which she too might enjoy the space. While she respected the structured design of avenues and formal flower beds, they bored her. She didn't so much want to tame the landscape, but to see it flourishing. She devoted herself to searching out the rarest exotic plants and shrubs. 

Descartes graciously offered to devote himself to the deeper consideration of the botanical garden and its scientific approach, while Socrates, had now managed to get up with the aim of strolling through any part of the garden where his mind could tell him he was instead in the middle of a wild nature, free from the confinement of the royal greenhouses. 

Enchanted by the accidents of nature, Marie's gentleman gardners set to work, despite some reluctance on the part of the finance minister to cover the costs, which were judged excessive. Such was the price Marie felt should be justly paid, if only for the privilege of enjoying such delights. 

Why should such an obscure story of the mind's natural language as told by Socrates, Descartes, and Marie be of interest to a world more concerned with the trappings of how? 

It shouldn't, but it makes for entertaining consideration, if only for the author and those who visit her retreat, which she embellished with a "natural" beauty belonging to that of her beloved hamleau, the paradisial playground she adored. 

Happily wandering about her Temple of Love, in the dappled shade of two weeping willow trees, with paradise apples growing in the garden, white pelote de neige roses, and liliacs and lavender, little ideas were launched, on everything from natural encounters to thoughts thereon. 

This little bar into which Socrates and Descartes stumbled, was that of the gracious Marie, who could engage in lively debates with the best of them, but only so long as to not bore polite company, which she often felt was more appreciative of her petit fours than of her intellect's rational discourse. 

That was, until Socrates and Descartes came along. They enjoyed both. And with this pairing, a new fashion for intellectual gardening was born, and the ladies of California were eager to follow suit. 

And with that, Marie set out to work in which appeared on the surface as childish behavior, simply to entertain her new guests. 

Decades later, after this legendary event, descendants of Socrates, Descartes and Marie began to think radically different. Some ventured in search of understanding their feelings, some went off in search for how those feelings came into being, and those in America and Europe turned their attention to other matters, such as designing iPhone applications to cultivate subjects that required little mental attention to consider. The more industrious of the group set out on capitalizing on the secrets and became wildly popular. 

In the end, they walked out the doors of the bar, stood upon the precipice between emotion and reason, and jumped into a neighboring flowerbed, without regard for reason or overwhelming sentiment as a driver of human behavior. 

 

Precipice 2014

Opinion on Everything

The Ancient Greek aphorism, “know thyself” was inscribed in the pronaos (forecourt) of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi according to the Greek periegetic (travelogue) writer Pausanias. 

The first time I heard this aphorism I felt humbled by it. The sentiment that arose within me was one associated with honest inward reflection. In later years I read that in the Suda, the 10^th century encyclopedia of Greek knowledge, the proverb “applied to those whose boasts exceed what they are” and that “know thyself” was a warning to pay no attention to the opinion of the multitude.  There is a similar reference in Aristophane's Clouds, a dialogue between the father and son with respect to the son's lack of learning. 

I hadn’t originally conceived of this aphorism from the second perspective, but I see how that too is a truism. Sometimes we do claim more authority than we possess, and of course, focusing our attention on the opinions of the masses only drowns out our own internal regulator of personal truth. However you wish to interpret the concept, it has wisdom written all over it. 

If we know ourselves no one can deceive us. This is not to say that people cannot lie to us and have us believe them, but the moment we blame shift is the moment we forget the role we play in the experience. We can chose to play the self-righteous victim, or we can chose to play the observer, examining human behavior instead of reacting to it.

Of course, this is not so easily done when the emotions are triggered, but knowing that we have this choice is a step in the right direction. And by right, I mean less emotionally tasking. 

I’m not saying that we continue to associate with people who deceive us. We can chose instead to disassociate ourselves because it is not right for us to have them in our lives. Excluding people from our lives solely as emotional reaction keeps us stuck in that vicious circle of blame and regret/anger and sadness that so many people experience in interpersonal relationships.

      

The trick to following sage advice is to know how to live in accordance with its meaning. While Socrates was not the first to express this concept, he most certainly ascribed truth to it. In fact the foundation of thinking stemmed from these two seemingly contradictory concepts: know thyself and I know that I know nothing. 

If I know that I know nothing, how can I ever know myself? This might make for an interesting philosophical dialogue, but it is a discussion for another day.

Now back to my opinion on everything ... 

The Beauty of Apples

One of the greatest fairy tale controversies is the dispute over whether or not the apple was evil. If Snow White was inherently good, then it was not (apple) evil that lulled this fairy princess to sleep, it was her own desire, her mesmerization with the possession of goodness, personified in the beauty of the apple. 

The softest of human tendency is quietude, being quiet with oneself allows one to notice the insideness of all things. When this fairy princess gazes at a bunny rabbit, a bird, or an apple, she is seeing it for its inherent goodness, a reflection of her own internal affinity or appreciation for such. 

Snow White looks deeper into the apple to get to know the apple. She recognizes an inherent difference between this apple as compared to other apples. She knows this before she bites into the apple. What happens next is a combination of the inherent properties of the apple in conjunction with Snow White's willingness to give herself permission to bite into the apple, the persistency to bite that comes from her desirous attraction to certain conditions as exhibited by the apple, and her preparedness or present disposition of mind, otherwise called her openness or innocence toward that which is she perceives as good or beautiful.

As said Diotima in Plato's Symposium, 'the happy are made happy by the acquisition of good things. Nor is there any need to ask why a man desires happiness; the answer is already final.' 

Desire is common to all, replies Socrates.
The apple is delicious, responds Snow.

Malcontents insist that the apple is evil, whereas defenders of beauty and goodness adhere to the notion that the apple itself is inherently beautiful and that it is not merely the apple but the combined effect with the princess' own desirous nature that lulls her into the slumber. 

In other words, Snow White's slumber is the effect of her natural desire combined with the apple's inherent beauty or goodness.

Zealous provocateurs place blame on fruit when in reality effects are a result of collective conditions. Fairy tale aficionados understand that happily ever only comes true when one recognizes combined goodness or beauty in all things, even in so-called poisoned apples. 

Sophists Return

Blah, Blah, Blah (2012)

Mel Bochner

Plato and his teacher Socrates would have laughed at this art. It symbolizes the logon didonai or the human ability to "give reasons" to sway the doxa, what we call "public opinion" (which is the main target of rhetorical persuasion). 

Here's the rub. The Sophists of yesterday still dwell among us. Making their way around the world, around the internet, and into our homes and minds. Evoking pathos with every word they speak, every post they share, Sophists move their audience, which is, according to Plato, a type of "rhetorical pathology" (Phaedrus, 272) intended to cause mental confusion. 

Language Is Not Transparent

Mel Bochner

Sophist-like posts, tweets, articles, and videos flood the internet. Calculated to cause people to feel sympathy and sadness, this artistic representation of human expression triggers the emotional center of the brain, evicting the soundness of judgment with it. 

How is it that words can move us so? What faculty of human understanding is so powerful, yet so manipulatable, that an individual who has no true understanding of that which they say can still overwhelm us with words, causing us to abandon all sense of balance and tranquility in the process? Swept away in an emotional hijacking, the transformation from the rational to the irrational occurs in a split second, at the very sight or sound of the Sophist's persuasive sermon. 

News stories, headlines, social posts, and public videos share this sermon-like vernacular. Our society is accustomed to it. The lingo of the masses has long since been a dialect intended to move, persuade, or sway an individual toward a certain belief system - even if only temporarily, because in reality, it is only a temporary moment of irrational thinking that is needed to cause a revolution. Irrationality cannot be sustained on a long-term basis without the continual bombardment of highly charged words to supercharge human emotion. 

It doesn't get any better than this

Mel Bochner

It was for this reason that Plato rejected rhetoric as an appropriate form of providing education through reasoning speech. According to him, the ability to provide reasons cannot be of useful service in the formation and transformation of public opinion; such service reduces it to the mere conformation to majority opinion and renders it manipulative. 

Therefore the receiver of education should first and foremost gain insight into true reasons. Such knowledge, which makes it possible to take a stand against the whole world, is accessible only to philosophy. Philosophy is therefore episteme (true, right science), which sophistic rhetoric, always aiming at doxic understanding in its common aspect, has never been able to reach. 

Chuckle

Mel Bochner

Is Philosophy the true and right science? Certainly philosophical thinking can be described as a method by which thoughts and conclusions are analyzed against that which we know, that which we do not know, and that which we can only rationalize. But who has the time? 

Most individuals simply rely on their own filtering system, presuming that "right" vs "wrong" will be instantly illuminated inside their heads, giving them direct access to that which is true, correct, and obvious. "Duh," I used to say as a young teenager, which was met with an automatic rolling of the eyes by my parental units. 

Fool

Mel Bochner

It is fortune's luck that this rolling of the eyes occurs for us all. But are we justified in our eye movements? How do we know that what we think is right? For that matter, how do we know that what we think is what we think? Without examining our thoughts, without investigating all of our thoughts at a deeply profound level and then cross-referencing them in a systematic fashion (Descartian philosophizing), all of our thoughts and emotional reactions are subject to Sophist control. 

It is forever 1984 on the Internet. 

Even this blog has a 1984'ish aspect to it in the sense that this blog has a purpose: to entertain. 

However, this blog also stirs the power of individual thought in the process. Articles herein have one thing in common despite their diverse subject matter: A lack of rhetoric. 

Do I have To Draw You A Picture

Mel Bochner

The words and pictures herein combine together to offer insight into true reasons. Humorously, factually, quizzically, prolonged exposure to philosophical thinking will make it possible for an individual utilizing rational judgment to take a stand against the whole world and replace it with humor, insight, and questions that make others think. 

Still more: Philosophical thinking can re-educate and transform the easily-swayed mind into a community effort, a mindset capable of examining multiple scenarios without attachment to any specific agenda that has not undergone significant examination. And even after examination, a community mindset will continually revisit prior conclusions and test them against new hypotheses to ensure their continued validity or, if incongruities arise, expose their vulnerability to new scenarios. 

This type of thinking system is at the heart what Socrates instilled in his follower students. For Socrates, freeing himself and his fellow citizens to think for themselves meant that there was no room for (old) poetry, since 

we are ourselves authors of a tragedy... Thus you are poets, and we also are poets in the same style, rival artists and rival actors, and that the finest of all dramas, one, which indeed can be produced only by a code of true law (Laws, VII 817b).

Know What I Mean?

Mel Bochner

Despite all this examining, there was still room for the gods in Socrates' heart and mind, but Plato's texts offer us insight into why. On a very personal level, Socrates wanted to dwell among the gods. He wanted to feast with the Olympic winners for the rest of his days. 

On a spiritual level, the 4th century witnessed a permanent change in the attitudes of all Greeks. What resulted was a new attitude toward life and its expectations - a new world view. In the classical world of the polis, public and private lives were fused. Duty to the city-state was in itself virtuous. But in the Hellenistic world, public and private lives were made separate, and the individual's only duty was to himself. 

In art, sculpture, architecture, or philosophy, we see more attention paid to individualism and introspection. Plato's Ideas and Forms - universal principles of truth - were rejected in favor of individual traits. 

Socrates, the most noble Athenian, spent his entire life trying to fathom the mysteries of life: what is virtue? what is justice? what is beauty? what is the best form of government? what is the good life? 

In the Apology, Socrates, 70-plus years old, knew that he could go into exile, knew that he could flee his beloved Athens, but instead chose to remain and allow those in power to put him to death. Whether he would eternally dine with the gods he could not know for certain, but he could allow himself to imagine it freely because he had spent a lifetime examining it fully. 

In the end, what we ultimately choose to believe is our own. 

By example of Socrates we know it is possible to die free in the knowledge that we have examined life and ourselves to the best of our abilities. What comes afterwards we cannot know, but true examination prepares one for all possibilities. 

People who examine their thoughts are the ones who can enjoy rhetoric because they have the capacity to put it in its place, to understand its intended pathos, and to recognize its inherent effect upon the mind ... without buying into it. 

Haha

Mel Bochner

Quotations from Plato's work are taken from The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Misological Missy: Tea and Sparkling Discourse

Most individuals would rather pay someone to read their fortune from tea leaves at the bottom of a cup than engage in a philosophical debate.

    Brewing the perfect cup of tea takes time, just as philosophy is a slow and laborious process. Choosing the perfect tea leaf demands careful examination, while philosophizing demands that we examine each and every thread of reason. 

     Philosophizing requires fastidious, meticulous attention to detail, the ability to search for minor, even trivial errors in how thoughts are sewn together, and the willingness to essentially ask oneself how, where, and if one should be carrying around certain thoughts and ideas in one’s head. 

     The willingness to match philosophical wits against one’s fellow citizen can end in disaster, as it did in the case of the Greek philosopher Socrates (469 - 399 BCE), who, despite devoting his entire life to unraveling the threads of reason, was ultimately given hemlock instead of tea, and put to death for impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens.

     Perhaps Socrates was a bit “too” Confucius-like in nature, ignoring practical worries such as those associated with husbandry, parenthood, and livelihood. Instead of devoting himself to ordinary pursuits, Socrates could be found cheerfully and leisurely strolling though the Agora, the gathering place in the ancient city of Athens. He discoursed with people of all kinds and classes, from lowest to highest. He joked. He smiled. He made the people whom he questioned and cross-examined feel important, and he always seemed to welcome their answers as a means of learning more about a subject he wished to consider. 

     Had Socrates not been so busy heuristically acquiring knowledge about himself and his fellow, beloved Athenians, he might have instead busied himself crafting clever puzzle boxes to delight - instead of corrupt - Athenian children. 

     Rather than poking holes in the rational judgment of his fellow citizens, he could have harnessed his unique combination of constructive energy and practical dynamism to discuss enigmas and the marvelous ingenuity of others. Rather than pointing out erroneous thoughts, Socrates could have, in the same mood of joyful freedom, spent the entirety of his life teaching Athenians how to play logic games or introducing them to their own, unique brand of brilliance. 

     Had Socrates turned his philosophical quest into a delightful game, he might have emerged the victor, securing himself a lifetime of tea parties and hearty meals at the celebratory table in the Prytaneum, where the victors of the Olympic Games were awarded meals for life.

     Instead of the “Socratic Method”, a form of inquiry and discussion meant to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas, the world might have instead had the “Socratic Puzzle”, an enigma that tests the ingenuity of the solver by requiring them to put together pieces in a logical way in order to come up with a desired solution. 

     Instead of discussing the problems of Athenian government, Socrates could have built board games, the solutions to which would have demanded great skill of its players in recognizing patterns and creating a particular order; skills that Athenian children with higher inductive reasoning and aptitudes might have later put to good use in Athenian government. And who would have been congratulated? Why, their teacher Socrates, of course. And yes, Socrates, being Socrates, may have said that he was not a teacher to be congratulated, but simply a builder of puzzles. 

     As children delight in discovery, so too would their parents have delighted in seeing their offspring put their puzzle solving and critical thinking skills to use to solve serious issues affecting Athens. Whether Socrates wished it or not, he would have been rolling in minas as a result. Aristophanes might have depicted Socrates as an earnest and forthright son of Athens, who climbed a tree, reached up into the clouds, and pulled out a puzzle. 

     “Socrates! Sweet Socrates! Build us a puzzle that we might feel as if we are floating in the clouds after having solved it. Build us a puzzle that might allow us to safely watch an eclipse and contemplate the Sun. And then teach us, O Socrates, how to solve all your puzzles, which we have come to learn.”

     There are many ways to match wits, some clearly more positive than others. Rather than nit-pick, demolish, or leave inconclusive someone’s thoughts, explore them, discover yourself in them, and then allow yourself to linger. Wander through thoughts as if each and every one was a guest at your tea party. Consider each thought on its own merit. Good thoughts will naturally come together like a well-designed puzzle. Bad thoughts don’t naturally fit. You need to turn them around or twist them in some form or fashion, but they belong somewhere or they would not have been invited to the party in the first place. As with all good puzzles and tea parties, the task at hand is to find the solution, to find how or where every one might fit at the table. Every puzzle piece has place and it’s up to us to find it. 

         Every thought that arrives to Misological Missy’s tea party is thought about, and then dipped in tea and enjoyed like a crumpet. 

     And who is at the other end of this Prytaneum table? Why, it is Misological Missy’s good friend, Socrates! 

     Tired of conversing with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer; having heard all Palamedes and Ajax the son of Telamon had to say; Socrates welcomed his invitation. 

     “What a delight!” said Socrates, at the notion of joining Misological Missy and all the thoughts and figures she invited to her tea party. 

     Squares and rectangles, triangles and parallelograms, even the more unique esoteric shapes and figures presented party guests with a delightful challenge: to make them all fit.

     “And nicely, so!” said Missy. 

Art by Shenn

ArtfulVoyage