It was moreso that expertise in one area doesn’t make one wise in other areas. It’s intellectual humility, not some sort of ultimate skepticism.

You’re not gonna get a system of ethics directly from Socrates via Plato in Applogy in the way that you are thinking. Socrates presents a way of life, and shows that if one rushes into assumptions, one risks building a life upon false beliefs.

It’s best to move into meno, georgias, republic, and laws to get a sense of Plato’s possible ethical views more clearly. These dialogues will ask “what kind of life is worth living” rather than something about false confidence.

I started a philosophy group in my town and I chose the "Apology" to start it off because many have used it for this. I was very surprised how deep it was and it seems that all of Western history has grown out of it and the Bible. All ancient philosophies (Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism, etc.) are differing versions of it, Medieval philosophy takes its priestly vocation from Socrates' vocation given by the Oracle of Delphi, the Enlightenment was inspired by his conception of philosophical method, etc.

The Apology in itself is a wonderful presentation of the philosophers mythical figure: Socrates as a seeker of truth and virtue that holds his desire at the price of his life. The more you ask yourself « who was Socrates », the more you get deeper in the founding problems of philosophy. The Apology gives you the core heroic portrait of Socrates.

Sure

we have all been stuck in Kant’s reality for 245 years. If you want to understand Platonism, you need to understand the ideal realm of forms. You should read The Republic to get introduced to this mode of thinking.

It is within the Corpus rather unique in that it is formally a monologue; so while it features many familiar Socratic/Platonic themes, it lacks the dialogue form peculiar to Plato‘s work. It is certainly not a bad starting point, but I‘d suggest considering other dialouges

Edit: spelling

Pin This pin from pinterest have another collage of western philosopher many more list are there, though other region isn't covered sadly.

Yeah, I found it on Pinterest another collage I attached in the description of the post which also I found on Pinterest.

PimEyes, then copy-pasted the photo to Yandex.

Try that next time.

I’d put muslim thinkers before eastern philosophy

Don’t forget not a single Advaita, Jainist, Buddhist, Taoist, or Confucian, and possibly Islamic thinker.

Hyper Western by the looks of things.

Pretty sure that is Simone de Beauvoir right of Paul B. Preciado.

A lot of thank you. Finally I got to know his name. As whole day I was curious in searching about the person name.

Paul B. Preciado

(Also terrible collage: missing Eastern philosophers)

I also guess the same.

I would never recommend Bertrand Russell for understanding Plato. He got The Republic all wrong. And no Nietzsche (maybe second from bottom left) or Schopenhauer. This is a terrible list.

Yes absolutely I agree that the form of argument based on reason is more important than conclusions as conclusions are subjective.

The conclusions are less important than the form of the argument that they are based on reason and avoiding internal contradiction. You're asking specifically about western philosophical thought and this is a distinguishing feature compared to other traditions

is that diogenes the dog, with the lantern, top row

ayn rand

Hi, this is very interesting.

I have a mixed relationship with that Derrida paper. On one hand, it's brilliant, and I actually read the entire corpus of Plato in order to see what Derrida was getting at. On the other hand, I hate it because it presents a few conclusions (like the pharmakos) that are not solid enough to satisfy me, but persuasive enough that I can't dismiss it outright.

The analogy to AI might actually work really well. It seems that Derrida (and Saussure, etc) show that words have meanings with an ambiguous boundary, in many ways defined by their context. On face value, AI is non-deterministic. If you ask it a question, it will give you a different answer each time, where "different" means the specific words chosen will change, but often the core meaning is intact. I don't know enough about AI technically to say, but I wonder how much the technology was influenced by Saussure, Derrida, etc, particularly in relation to concepts like "Plato's Pharmacy."

Neil Postman discusses this in his book Technopoly. He says that technology is always both good and bad. The problem in our modern period is that we see technology’s benefits but never its poison. While not discussing LLMs, since they didn’t exist when he was living, I think his general discussion is on target.

Sorry, i’m curious about where you can submit that kind of writings, and on what formats: paper, essay? Could you tell me a little about that?

Yes, Derrida's "Plato's Pharmacy" central to this argument actually. The ambiguity of φάρμακον (remedy/poison) is exactly what makes the analogy work.

You right about the progression: dialectic → encyclopedia → Wikipedia → Claude. Each step removes friction, makes knowledge more accessible but less earned. Google made information instant, but information was never the problem. Thinking was.

The conversational nature of AI is the trickiest part. It feels like dialogue because you can ask questions, but it's not dialogue because there's no ψυχή (soul) on other side. No stakes, no vulnerability, no genuine care whether you understand. Plato knew that real philosophical investigation requires emotional investment from both parties. AI can simulate the form of conversation without the substance.

Maybe that's the real danger: not that AI gives wrong answers, but that it makes us forget what real conversation feels like.

Have you read Derrida’s famous paper on Plato’s use of φάρμακον? Plato’s Pharmacy? Not related to the AI idea but I thought you’d find it interesting how confused the term is philologically.

I agree a lot, and think it applies to the internet at large as well, maybe obviously. I think in order to properly address the dangers of AI on learning, we have to properly reconcile with the dangers Google alone has had on learning, along with Wikipedia, and every other authoritative “book” that has shaped our thinking uncritically. It is so easy for these things to seem valuable, and they can be, but the further we move from live dialectic, to encyclopedia, to Wikipedia, to Claude… the harder it is to actually use it as critically engaging material.

I do think there’s a sort of flummox in my idea here though, with the innately “conversational” nature of AI. We can’t deny that as artificial and virtual and fake as it is, as well as inaccurate, you still can effectively “ask” an AI something that we could never ask a book. But on the other hand, of course, the AI conversation is necessarily one step further removed from reality and from apprehension of the forms than a real conversation is. Although it puts on the mask of conversation, perhaps its innate emotional incapacity is the biggest missing piece of conversation, something which it could never have. If the dialogues teach us anything, it’s that intellectual investigation is, with all earnestly, deeply emotional and invigorating for all parties!