I’d have to go back and reread the original but is Socrates “proof” of remember not from careful framed questions that lead the student to answer Socrates with what he wants to hear?
In a world where reason and endurance dominate daily life, the gap between believing something and knowing something has never been wider. Belief often functions as a temporary anesthetic: it calms the mind, offers short-lived comfort, and helps us endure what we do not yet understand. But this comfort does not transform us. When we believe, we relax; when we relax, we stop questioning; and without questioning, there is no real growth. This is why concepts like the “soul,” once powerful in ancient philosophy, now struggle to carry meaning. They used to explain the unknown; today they cannot compete with what we’ve learned about how the human system actually works.
The truth is simpler and far more demanding: we are living inside a biological and cognitive mechanism shaped by millions of years of evolution. This mechanism determines our fears, our sensitivities, our fragilities, and our emotional reflexes. When we try to interpret these with vague metaphysical language, we end up soothing ourselves rather than understanding ourselves. But when we recognize the evolutionary engineering behind our minds, we finally gain access to our real nature.
Transformation begins not by believing comforting stories, but by seeing the mechanism clearly. Once we understand how the system operates, we stop blaming ourselves, we stop inventing illusions, and we begin to make room for genuine change. In short: belief soothes, but awareness liberates. And liberation begins by returning to our origin — the evolutionary structure that made us who we are.
Fun article! It's so disappointing to me that Socrates takes what I think to be a correct view, that there is, in fact, an afterlife, and argue with such poor argumentation.
But I only hold it against Socrates so much. He was, in many ways, trying to do real philosophy for the first time; he was bound to make some errors, even if he was a genius.
Might Dejavú be a tiny example of that possibility? Affinities with strangers may show an inkling of it. Sudden solutions to nagging questions may also speak it. No clue. Fun speculation. Our DNA may indeed reach further back than we imagine. 🍻
Makes me wonder about the level of depth (maybe even unknown depth) that Plato was writing in: Socrates as a person could very well be the living embodiment/representation of virtue and thus his ‘unique’ Individual experience of himself could be nullified in that higher level of becoming (or being).Thus in some sense, by joining with the Good through death, indeed the soul is immortal but not in the sense that we would like to believe— because, the expectation that we have about the modern idea of the nature of consciousness could very well be non-existent. Of course, this means that everyone who does indeed motion themselves according to inquiry (like Socrates) will join the eternal forms, thus making their souls immortal in some sense. The opposite of motioning in accord with inquiry equals disorder and disorder is a negative entity that negates existence, thus making people who live in vice doomed to a kind of unbecoming (like a hell of sorts)
But ehh, what am I saying this is not making any sense.. I guess this is what happens when one does not sit through their thoughts : - )
Soalrates is not immortal. Diotima's Speech in the Symposium states that a mortal's legacy is the closest one can come to immortality. Still makes sense to me.
Very profound discussion. I may have mistaken the text of Socrate
as a moment in time to reflect, as a
“My Dear Companion” pause, in each of the three parts, and of social justice itself. The immortality of the soul is one that does not answer as easily, as you reference. Thank you for pointing this out.
I’ve read that trauma can be carried on thru multiple generations. In the DNA. 🧬
I wonder…
There’s something quietly powerful about how memory, meaning, and mortality intersect here. Thanks. ❤️
I’d have to go back and reread the original but is Socrates “proof” of remember not from careful framed questions that lead the student to answer Socrates with what he wants to hear?
In a world where reason and endurance dominate daily life, the gap between believing something and knowing something has never been wider. Belief often functions as a temporary anesthetic: it calms the mind, offers short-lived comfort, and helps us endure what we do not yet understand. But this comfort does not transform us. When we believe, we relax; when we relax, we stop questioning; and without questioning, there is no real growth. This is why concepts like the “soul,” once powerful in ancient philosophy, now struggle to carry meaning. They used to explain the unknown; today they cannot compete with what we’ve learned about how the human system actually works.
The truth is simpler and far more demanding: we are living inside a biological and cognitive mechanism shaped by millions of years of evolution. This mechanism determines our fears, our sensitivities, our fragilities, and our emotional reflexes. When we try to interpret these with vague metaphysical language, we end up soothing ourselves rather than understanding ourselves. But when we recognize the evolutionary engineering behind our minds, we finally gain access to our real nature.
Transformation begins not by believing comforting stories, but by seeing the mechanism clearly. Once we understand how the system operates, we stop blaming ourselves, we stop inventing illusions, and we begin to make room for genuine change. In short: belief soothes, but awareness liberates. And liberation begins by returning to our origin — the evolutionary structure that made us who we are.
Best comment
Fun article! It's so disappointing to me that Socrates takes what I think to be a correct view, that there is, in fact, an afterlife, and argue with such poor argumentation.
But I only hold it against Socrates so much. He was, in many ways, trying to do real philosophy for the first time; he was bound to make some errors, even if he was a genius.
Knowledge by memory is a weird theory, though.
Yes, it is weird!
Might Dejavú be a tiny example of that possibility? Affinities with strangers may show an inkling of it. Sudden solutions to nagging questions may also speak it. No clue. Fun speculation. Our DNA may indeed reach further back than we imagine. 🍻
Insightful, as always.
Makes me wonder about the level of depth (maybe even unknown depth) that Plato was writing in: Socrates as a person could very well be the living embodiment/representation of virtue and thus his ‘unique’ Individual experience of himself could be nullified in that higher level of becoming (or being).Thus in some sense, by joining with the Good through death, indeed the soul is immortal but not in the sense that we would like to believe— because, the expectation that we have about the modern idea of the nature of consciousness could very well be non-existent. Of course, this means that everyone who does indeed motion themselves according to inquiry (like Socrates) will join the eternal forms, thus making their souls immortal in some sense. The opposite of motioning in accord with inquiry equals disorder and disorder is a negative entity that negates existence, thus making people who live in vice doomed to a kind of unbecoming (like a hell of sorts)
But ehh, what am I saying this is not making any sense.. I guess this is what happens when one does not sit through their thoughts : - )
Soalrates is not immortal. Diotima's Speech in the Symposium states that a mortal's legacy is the closest one can come to immortality. Still makes sense to me.
I will add: he will live as long as people like us remember him.
That is the rational to "DIA de los muertos" in Mexico. There is no death until; it is forgotten.
Probably, same concept in different social scenarios. Don't you think?
Immortality is not live forever it’s for being remembered and not forgotten and socrates here is an example
Socrates is immortal. He will not suffer the second death. The time at which, no living person speaks his name.
Very profound discussion. I may have mistaken the text of Socrate
as a moment in time to reflect, as a
“My Dear Companion” pause, in each of the three parts, and of social justice itself. The immortality of the soul is one that does not answer as easily, as you reference. Thank you for pointing this out.