Find out why Nietzsche wasn't a fan of Socrates

Observation: philosophy seems to have a lot of personalities in it, while mathematics and experimental science attaches people’s names to ideas, but their personalities are not mentioned. Why does Nietzsche haven to write a third book to bang on about how Socrates was not important? (And he was poor. And working class. And ugly. Nyar nar-nee nyar nar)

I may equate philosophy with metaphysics. If you deduce it from postulates, it is pure mathematics. If you measure it, it is physics. The bit that remains according to a 1st cent. librarian was meta-physics, because it was stuck on the shelf next to physics (this is debated). I like to think of metaphysics as the in-tray of Science. Bentham and others tried to identify what is ‘right’ or ‘good’ by seeking a maximum for some property called ‘utility’. If they succeeded, this would become mathematics (like game theory), or physics if ‘utility’ could be physically measured. He didn’t succeed, but we get a better idea of the problem by trying things like this. You mentioned this.

So, why the personalities? My guess: philosophy may want this, just as pathology wants case histories: if you know the background of an early thinker, you may see what limited their thoughts, and avoid the same errors. Maybe?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.