u/ImportanceOk3837

Today I finished reading Meno and wanted to talk about it for a moment and try to answer a few questions:

What is virtue?

Socrates doesn't know what virtue is but I believe that he gets close to concluding that virtue is that which all qualities come from but at the end he goes full Ion and says thats its actually something that the gods give to you at one point or another.

Meno, trying to answer like Gorgias would (I suppose), believes that virtue is acquiring beautiful and good things justly - or that virtue is derived from doing good things so in a sense it is one thing that comes from many.

Is it teachable?

Meno just doesn't know.

Socrates thinks that it isn't with the caveat that one should keep searching for it, and that sophists are as close to teachers of virtue as you can get. Its something that the gods give to you, afterall.

And, we know for sure that it isn't teachable because great men failed or refrained from teaching their children their morals, which applies to a certain accusing Athenian politician and his father, and you can see how well the current crop of Athenian gentlemen reflect that.

Okay, so, what is virtue? And is it teachable?

I think that virtue is the source of all qualities, guiding all that which the soul undertakes, so I suppose its an inverse of Meno's opinion.

And I do however think its knowledge and can be thought but no way to ensure that it will be observed by those you teach.

I do, however, see where Socrates comes from. Virtue is such a rarity that it might aswell be a divine gift.

Reading the dialogues out of order actually has its own joys which, to me, appear to be learning in a more natural and entertaining manner.

But that's neither here nor there. What I want is to piece together why Socrates chose death. This is me trying to get a more complete picture of his reasoning in Crito based on what I've read in Apology, Minos and Phaedo.

In Crito Socrates argues that he shouldn't care about what people who don't know what they talk about say, and that it would only harm him (I suppose in matters of the Athenians choosing to execute him) and that showing concern for his children or property would be showing concern for material matters of which he claimed to be uncaring of, and being afraid of death when he said he wasn't because he believed that his souls would go to Hades.

Fleeing would be "destroying" the law of the city that "birthed and nurtured" him, which, if he did so reject why only know that he is about to die and not at any other point in which it wouldn't be so self serving to do so? And ultimately while lawgivers may be unjust, law is good and just, and fleeing from law here would mean that he wouldn't find it even harsher in Hades where he could flee from it no more.

In Apology he makes many of the same arguments but, interestingly, he says that he had a life mission given to him by the god of Delphi - Apollo, and both in Crito and in Phaedo he mentions dream visions which further reinforces the idea that Socrates was a genuine believer and not some mad elderly man.

In Minos he claims that law is this divine truth or aspect of divinity that exists, if given by the gods, to enrich the lives of people through spurring them towards doing good and acting justly, so my guess is that he saw the laws of Athens in the same manner, though warped and twisted by wicked and unjust men.

And in Phaedo he discusses the nature of the soul and his belief in the underworld. Mostly that death was no big deal for a philospher, thay his soul was purified by philosophy and that ultimately he would be judged, he thought, fairly and hopefully be given a place among heroes and gods where he could continue his work.

So, what I've pieced together is that:

Socrates chose death because he was truly pious, truly good and just, and wanting to not fail the gods, his people and himself, and unafraid of death, he chose to die.

But that is just my reading so far. Perhaps another dialogue completely shatters this, and I haven't even touched on piety, though I have finished reading Euthyphro, so I'll leave this for another post.

So, today I've finished reading both Clitophon and Phaedo and wanted to talk about them briefly.

Clitophon is weird, its incomplete and Socrates says nothing much in it, while Clitophon basically calls him out for being a great speaker when talking about virtues but not really coming to practical conclusions.

The text is likely incomplete, I guess, but I like to think that things got akward after that and Socrates just stood there looking at Clitophon.

Now, about Phaedo:

Damn, I don't know what to say except that its both beautiful to imagine and consider the hope for a better existance that Socrates lays out, how he correlates life and death and, when he talks about his theory of what the Earth looks like and the rivers of the underworld is very mystical and gripping.

I don't know if I am just choosing to believe of if he truly persuaded me but I'm starting to have the same hopes - that knowledge, detachment and philosophy will not just lead me to a better life, as I know they will, but a better afterlife as well.

Growing old won't be so painful, dying won't be so agonizing, and in leading a good life you receive a good death, and well see where the rivers of the underworld take us.

I've just finished reading Ion and I am now 10 pages away from finishing Phaedo.

So, after reading Ion, this is what I've gathered:

Ion doesn't know what he is talking about, but that's alright because rhapsodes (and prophets) don't know what they are saying either, as their "skill" is actually divine inspiration and channeling the "divine part" of things, instead of doing so of their own accord.

Though the Gods may also endow people with certain skills?... I think Socrates may be arguing that artistic skills are actually divinely inspired and therefore not exactly skills like the practical ones such as charioteering, as he mentions in the text.

Ion tries to argue having skills similar to other professions, knowing how a slave and a general should talk but Socrates is having none of that and asks why them isn't he a general to which he gives a variety of answers but doesn't go anywhere, with Socrates concluding that Ion is not skilled in anything but can draw from the divine part of Homer pretty well.

So,

Having a skill or expertise includes both knowing what you are talking about and knowing enough to discern if/when others are correct or wrong, giving good or bad opinions when talking about the same or similar things.

Is there anything I could be missing or forgetting?

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.

Sup people.

I need some feedback on my homebrew acestries I made.

I am mostly looking for general feedback since this is my first time making homebrew ancestries for OGD&D and I think it might be good to bounce my ideas off of someone else in this case.

For full disclosure, I used S&W WB as a base but also used Greyhawk for the Half-Elf, and either statblock or my imagination for the other two.

The level 4 limitation that seems to be a theme here is something I did without noticing. I guess that's just where my head was at.

Gnomes freely advance as magic-users, and as fighters up to lvl 4. Gnomes can’t wear heavy armour. Can identify and appraise mundane treasure. They cant be turned to stone but suffer -2 against Spells & Staves.

Half-Elves advance as fighters/magic-users up to lvl 8 and as clerics up to level 4. They can use the elf variant class. Half-elves spot secret and hidden doors as elves do, and speak the same languages.

Hobgoblins freely advance as fighters/clerics, and as magic users up to lvl 4. No weapon restrictions as clerics/magic-users. +1 to-hit/dmg when fighting elves, dwarves, goblins & halflings.