And speaking of Jesus Christ, he argued his defence in front of Pontius Pilate in muted silence. And the first Christian martyr Saint Peter, was stoned to death by the Jews for not shutting up: Which is it to be?

I’ll take Forest Gump for evidence of a balanced position on philosophy; he too dodged the bullets for a cause he had no control over, nor the slightest influence with his historical position; may his memory live on!

This article is nothing more than a wild attempt to turn a far-right activist into a martyred Greek sage, pretending to be profound while reading more like something scribbled on a conspiracy forum between rants about "globalists."

Olivier’s main trick?

Glue together two totally unrelated things - Karl Popper’s Open Society and the death of Charlie Kirk - and claim they’re part of the same cosmic battle between truth and evil. Apparently, Popper’s criticism of Plato wasn’t about defending democracy but about giving the British Empire an excuse to control America. Sure. And the Illuminati probably proof-read The Republic while they were at it.

He paints Popper as some kind of villain for saying that philosophers shouldn’t rule everyone else, then romanticises Plato’s philosopher-kings as guardians of eternal truth. In other words, Olivier sides with the guy who wanted a class system and calls it "reason." Meanwhile, Popper’s whole point - that truth survives through criticism, not obedience - goes straight over his head.

Then comes the real stretch: Charlie Kirk as the new Socrates. That’s like comparing a YouTube debater to Galileo because he likes arguing on camera. Socrates questioned everyone, including himself; Kirk never doubted anything he said. Olivier calls that "moral courage." Most of us would call it arrogance with a microphone.

And this idea that Kirk was killed by the "globalist cabal" for "speaking truth to power" is pure fantasy. Kirk wasn’t opposing power - he was cheerleading it. Comparing his death to Socrates drinking hemlock or Christ on the cross isn’t just wrong, it’s indecent.

The piece ends with the usual martyr shtick: when you can’t defend someone’s ideas, turn them into a saint. But dressing up Trump-era culture war as ancient philosophy doesn’t make it deep, it just makes it pretentious.

Next up: Horst Wessel and Socrates

And “Chatbot John” with his AI generated masterpiece for the day. Hooray for cyber sanity ay!

John,

At best, your style of argument is to mimic John Cleese's argument sketch character. The other personas are worse, and the frequent " We've been over this before." commentary is tedious.

Why not start with your own house?

My understanding of Socrates was of someone who viewed argument as a means of understanding, not of persuasion.

diver dan,

Try running my post through any AI detection software.

Meanwhile, as foreign nationalists are being deported for unfavourable comments about Kirk, JD Vance has refused to condemn comments from Young Republicans calling for political opponents to be sent to gas chambers.

Art of the division!

A great example of why such "philosophy" pieces are so dangerous.

Check out where this joker got his philosophy degree from, though.

Fester,

I’m perfectly fine with the Cleese comparison. At least he knew how to spot a circular argument when he heard one.

The difference is that Socrates didn’t pretend polite "understanding" meant never calling nonsense what it is. He challenged people precisely to expose contradictions, not to make everyone feel clever and comfortable.

If you think argument is just about "understanding," then you’ve misunderstood Socrates. His method wasn’t therapy, it was demolition - questioning until the lazy assumptions collapsed. That’s exactly what I’m doing with Olivier’s piece. It wasn’t a dialogue, it was propaganda in a toga.

And as for "starting with my own house," I’d happily do so, provided you stop mistaking tone for substance. If I point out that a conspiracy theory dressed in classical robes is still a conspiracy theory, that’s not arrogance, it’s basic hygiene for anyone who claims to value reason.

So yes, Socrates sought understanding - but he got there by exposing falsehood, not indulging it. Maybe that’s the part of his legacy we should all revisit.