At 11:19 16-10-1998 +0100, Winfried wrote:
>The oracle of Delphi told Sokrates, that he is the wisest man on earth.
>Sokrates didn't believe that. He thought of himself as a "Con Incom" - the
>most popular saying of Sokrates is "I know, that I know nothing". He
>thought, it would be easy to prove that the oracle was wrong: just find a
>"Con Com", and this person is wiser than him.
>
(...)
>The conclusion of Sokrates was the following: People who are Con Com would
>be wiser than him. But by questioning the competence, they turned out to
>be Incon Incom in fact. Thus Sokrates concluded, that he was wiser than
>them for being at least Con Incom - the oracle was right.
Very interesting thought. From the 4 stage model one can conclude that
Uncon Com is better than Con Com; from Winfred one concludes that Con
Incom is better than Con Com.
May I suggest that probably Incon Incom is also better than Con Com ? At
least if they are awaked they can still learn. And, frequently, a Con Com
is someone unable to learn because he already knows (everything).
>Unfortunately, people didn't like Sokrates conclusion. They accused
>him to disturb the public order and to have bad influence on the youth.
Normally, Con Coms don't learn; and they don't like people that ask
questions, that don't obbey to the politically correct ( in a certain
place and time) that learn and that allow others to learn.
>This case study on Sokrates connects quite good with other threads here:
>It is a case study on faith and trust, to trust only in god and to
>question everything based on this trust.
No, not Socrates, really. Instead of "god", you should say "reason", or,
at least, "gods".
But also a case study in the
>necessity to protect oneself against destructive side effects of this
>questioning. In case of Sokrates it was a protective reaction of the
>people, that distroyed an unprotected Sokrates.
The "people" ? Or the "power system" ( including the "academics" of that
time - the sophists, of course).
>It was the same with Jesus
>and most other great leaders.
Yes, and with Giordano Bruno too; not to talk about Galileo.
I am wondering what the difference to Buddha
>was, who was not killed by the people he taught.
This is a very good remark; the same is true about Gandhi, or Lao Tsu.
Can this be a consequence of the difference between the occidental and the
oriental way of life? But that is a different thread, isn't it ?
Regards
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>