This is another dialogue I tend to avoid, in this case because it’s seemingly the most cliche one, containing the hemlock “episode”, which everyone knows- this is the Phaedo

save reason, or logos, from the greatest evil. By having his first sentence refer to Odysseus on the island of the Phaeacians

It begins with an allusion to the Odyssey. In the Charmides and Protagoras Socrates is also shown to be an Odyssean.

We’re explaining the political zeitgeist with this. Why is the west the way it is, why is the west hated. It goes back to Odysseus.

Socrates-Plato did not escape the “theological-political” of their time and place, i.e. Homerism- they transformed it, enhanced it. They isolated the noblest elements and emphasized them. Not to sound pretentious or whatever but I’ve been trying to take you through “the Odyssey for intellectuals” lately. And that is the “dialogues” I speak of.

The Phaedo is the third in the reading-order for the Neoplatonists. The story of the execution of Socrates is like Christianity for smart people, sorry not to mince words.

I feel it.

And I think others in my generation can relate to it better than Christianity.

Love your neighbor? How simplistic can you get? Jesus was a normie, designed for normies. If you think of humanity as your extended family then you probably like Jesus for that reason. I unfortunately interpret humanity through the myth of the metals, and see the different types of metal as different species entirely, and I seek to speak to my own species. For modesty’s sake, I’ll leave that for you to extrapolate on your own.

This is a text that is going to be canceled today, “gentlemen”. The first words Socrates says in this are about his (notoriously shrewish) wife Xanthippe who is present-

Crito, have someone take her home

What kind of metal is womanmetal? The implication is you reserve serious conversations for “the boys”. And there are youthful men present at this execution too.

Maybe think of this odyssey like a TV show. It’s more complex than is typically realized. The dialogue when Socrates dies isn’t the one he wrote at the end of his life. After the Phaedo he wrote a couple dialogues involving a Young Socrates. So these are like “flashbacks” as we call them, written by an ancient author. Biographically speaking, the Phaedo contains Socrates’ last moments. And yet the Neoplatonists consider the dialogue when he was young–the Parmenides–to be the peak of the corpus- odd, no?

The Symposium is also set in a time before Socrates was an old man. Just some details about “the real Jesus” of history. “Gasp!” And I personally prefer reading this stuff to any modern science quantum mechanic crap, maybe just my temperament.

The Phaedo is special in the sense that you can read all the rest of the dialogues as leading up to IT. All those talks he had with so many people. They all led to his execution. And yet he seems like the “right one” in those other dialogues. This is the paradox of Being. Or at least this expresses the limits of human being.

Neech himself actually repeatedly taught the Phaedo to youngsters, teenagers. The mustache man seems to have later in life hemlocked Socrates on more justified grounds than the historical Athenians. Still, we have a case here similar to how Socrates was an Odyssean- Nietzsche was a Socratic. This is the true meaning of the west, at least for the very oh so modest intellectuals.

Heidegger tried to–as he called it–“twist out” of Platonism and he couldn’t do it either. Plato like I said is something that only happens every few thousand years, maybe more. This is the condition that we have once we escape the theological-political (which only the retards can’t escape). So there’s really not much of a point in talking about this real Jesus because most people are confined in illusion by birth, and being free from that is a prerequisite from even beginning to grasp any of this. “Someone take her home”. Please escort the pleb from the premises. Or the latino spicnigger. The list is endless of the failed non-human types. They’re better off with the literal Jesus, sincerely. If you don’t have a mind for Socratism the next best option is Christianity. That gives you a myth you can understand about the truth, and it IS the truth. From there maybe you can strain yourself and study one of the dialogues. Otherwise those are just for “priests”.

Atheists shouldn’t be congratulating themselves here either. Proggism is just another form of diluted-Socratism. You believe in myths, you don’t know logos, because you don’t have an attention-span. It’s probably an inborn trait, one that can’t be corrected with medication. Give adderall to a normie and they’ll do some form of “spring cleaning”- give adderall to another nature and they’ll be trying to wrap their mind around Hegel, etc etc.

Damascius and Olympiodorus have commentaries on the Phaedo if you’re interested in old-time interpretations of “the real Jesus”.

What did you think all this was about anyway, stranger?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: