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.

For being truthful, four conditions must be met:

1) One's speech should not hurt anyone.
2) The facts must be correct.
3) The speech should be pleasant or affectionate.
4) The speech must have a benevolent purpose.

If any of these factors is missing, then it is better to remain silent.

http://damayanti.store/blogs/news/mastering-the-power-of-true-speech

Socrates' speech is believed to meet all four.
Was the other guy's speech meeting the same?

Claiming that even more people ought to be in prison, that in the country with already nearly the highest rate of incarceration, fulfils neither of the above four:
http://moneywise.com/news/top-stories/charlie-kirk-says-putting-more-americans-in-jail-will-solve-the-housing-crisis-whats-behind-his-theory

---

Dear Dan,

I believe that John Daysh is a true person, not AI.
I do believe, however, that he has a team of humans behind to support him, because it is difficult to reason that one person can have so much knowledge in so many divergent areas.

Yuyutsu,

With sound information and media literacy skills, you don't need a team. We now have faster access to more information than we've ever had.

When you can sort through the information with speed and accuracy to pick out what's reliable, the sky's the limit - no team required.

Strangely, people are still encouraged by truth.
Sorrowfully, their basic understanding of the world around them is flawed.
Their understanding of truth is not purely factual.
It includes far too much instinctive behaviour.

As an example: no person has any natural 'right' to anything.
Instead, we have needs.
When those needs are enshrined in law, and enforced, they become 'rights'.
However, without enforcement, there are no 'rights'.
If your way of thinking includes the existence of natural 'rights', your thinking is flawed.
And reason based on that must also be flawed?
I notice, oh so often, that when people express opinions, that is the case.
I just wish we could all be taught truth from an early age.
It took a long time for me to work it out.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I agree that rights are not natural - freedom is.

The way I like to describe it is that, say our freedom is a $100 note, then states take away our freedom and return us a change of some copper coins as "rights".

Yet predators are also a natural phenomenon, where even whole stars are swallowed up by black holes, so we should consider ourselves lucky that we are still alive: others for example were taken by states to Siberia and never returned.