The Student Room Group

Socrates and Theresa May: a comparison

Scroll to see replies

an ancient Greek Thinker called Sock
said "to Krito i still owe a cock"
he turned to his crew
"you should try this new brew "
and knocked back a pint of hemlock*
Original post by WBZ144
Under international law they are. Certain rights are absolute


That does not disprove my contention.

Laws are a human construct which change all the time and are relative, not absolute.
Reply 22
Original post by generallee
Human rights are relative, not absolute and universal.


Universal human rights advocates usually don't claim them to be objective or absolute, it's a prescriptive position

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by KimKallstrom
And Elizabeth l - one of the greatest monarchs ever seen - was continually promoting the concept of national pride.*


The Tudors needed it because their claim to the throne was shaky and because rising religious dissent and feuding made the N. European states invent nationalism as a replacement for God and King.
Original post by generallee
That does not disprove my contention.

Laws are a human construct which change all the time and are relative, not absolute.


Original post by the bear
an ancient Greek Thinker called Sock
said "to Krito i still owe a cock"
he turned to his no crew
"you should try this new brew "
and knocked back a pint of hemlock*


No mention of Mr Spock. :teehee:
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Socrates: "I am not an Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world"

May: "If you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere"

Sigh. :sad:


I think the context is important here. IMO it would be more correct to attribute that to Plutarch. It fits within the theme and argument of De Exilio - the nature of the land and Hellenism and all that.

Also, in Crito, Plato presents Socrates as making a contradictory argument - about the nature of the law and city-state. Socrates feels bound by a social contract to Athens - and his relationship with the Athens (and Laconia) is the whole of his undoing.
Original post by Trinculo
I think the context is important here. IMO it would be more correct to attribute that to Plutarch. It fits within the theme and argument of De Exilio - the nature of the land and Hellenism and all that.

Also, in Crito, Plato presents Socrates as making a contradictory argument - about the nature of the law and city-state. Socrates feels bound by a social contract to Athens - and his relationship with the Athens (and Laconia) is the whole of his undoing.


Let us not drown in Classicism - I was merely making a small point about the scale of May's Little Englander pandering. Not attempting to get out my Loebs. :teehee:
Original post by Fullofsurprises
No mention of Mr Spock. :teehee:


that would not be logical

:captain: *
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Let us not drown in Classicism - I was merely making a small point about the scale of May's Little Englander pandering. Not attempting to get out my Loebs. :teehee:


"Little Englander pandering"? Good grief.

It is amazing how any demonstration of English patriotism is repugnant to the English left. George Orwell remarked on it in The Lion and the Unicorn and it hasn't changed...

"One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it...

The mentality of the English left-wing intelligentsia can be studied in half a dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power...

It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would be more ashamed of being caught standing to attention during God Save The King than of stealing from a poor box”

Scottish Nationalism is an expression of a legitimate desire for national self determination. Irish Nationalists are patriots and freedom fighters.

But English nationalists are bigots, racists and little Englanders.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Socrates: "I am not an Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world"

May: "If you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere"

Sigh. :sad:


I've never understood the bizarre concept of being 'proud' of where you come from.
The only reason that any of us are British is that we won the postcode lottery and were born here rather than in an impoverished African village.

We have done nothing to 'deserve' being British, we haven't earned it or worked hard for it, we just happened to be born here due to factors completely outside our own control.

Saying you're 'proud to British' hardly seems a different concept to saying you're proud to have a nose or a liver. It's something you have by nature, rather than anything you have done to earn.

What frustrates me the most is that if you so much as question anything that British people did ever, you are seen as a traitor and someone who hates his country. Of course great things have been done by Britain and British people, but bad things have been done too, just like any other country.

But why should we take pride or shame in what people who have no connection to us whatsoever, apart from being born within a few hundred miles have achieved or done?

It baffles me. I'm British but i'm neither proud or ashamed to be, I just am and quite why people are proud of being born in a geographic area is strange.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
I've never understood the bizarre concept of being 'proud' of where you come from.
The only reason that any of us are British is that we won the postcode lottery and were born here rather than in an impoverished African village.

We have done nothing to 'deserve' being British, we haven't earned it or worked hard for it, we just happened to be born here due to factors completely outside our own control.

Saying you're 'proud to British' hardly seems a different concept to saying you're proud to have a nose or a liver. It's something you have by nature, rather than anything you have done to earn.

What frustrates me the most is that if you so much as question anything that British people did ever, you are seen as a traitor and someone who hates his country. Of course great things have been done by Britain and British people, but bad things have been done too, just like any other country.

But why should we take pride or shame in what people who have no connection to us whatsoever, apart from being born within a few hundred miles have achieved or done?

It baffles me. I'm British but i'm neither proud or ashamed to be, I just am and quite why people are proud of being born in a geographic area is strange.


So you are on the left (AFAIK?) and not a patriot. What a surprise... :smile:

You will continue to be baffled, I am afraid, because the love of one's country, of England, can't be explained to you.

It is like describing colour to a man blind from birth.
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
If things carry on like this I think I'd rather take my chances on being a citizen of nowhere over citizen of the UK :afraid:


Citizen of nowhere does have a certain ring to it :beard:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by generallee
So you are on the left (AFAIK?) and not a patriot. What a surprise... :smile:

You will continue to be baffled, I am afraid, because the love of one's country, of England, can't be explained to you.

It is like describing colour to a man blind from birth.


Point in case.
It's funny how those on the right who claim to be patriots seem to do the most moaning about how everything is awful. You don't love this country do you though? You don't love it's multiculturalism, you don't love its liberal streak, you don't love British institutions like the BBC, you don't like a redistributive economic system that gives the poor a chance.

You like and dislike things about this country just like anyone else. Yet I don't pretend I love everything about this country like you do.

I don't love or hate any countries. They just are. I don't hate Britain, not at all. But I don't see why I should take pride in something completely outside my control.

The idea of being proud of winning the post code lottery is deeply baffling.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Citizen of nowhere does have a certain ring to it :beard:


I remember a while back that Billy Disco argued that the BBC wasn't British, because if he admitted they were he'd have to admit that he didn't like a British institution.

That seems to be the case for a lot of right wing, chest beating patriots. 'I love everything British, and the things I don't like aren't really British'.
Don't really care what Socrates had to say tbh. I definitely think everyone should be proud of their own national identity. We are British after all- not citizens of the world but citizens of the UK. Americans are very proud of being American, Chinese people are very proud of being Chinese, why shouldn't we be proud to say we're British, not 'world citizens'?
(edited 7 years ago)
Socrates had a better beard tbh.
Original post by Ladbants
Don't really care what Socrates had to say tbh. I definitely think everyone should be proud of their own national identity. We are British after all- not citizens of the world but citizens of the UK. Americans are very proud of being American, Chinese people are very proud of being Chinese, why shouldn't we be proud to say we're British, not 'world citizens'?


Being proud of something means you have achieved something. What did you achieve to be British?
Did you earn being British? Or rather, you simply won the postcode lottery and was born in Britain as opposed to being born in an impoverished African village.

I don't understand the concept of being proud about something you have no control over. It's like saying you're proud of having a nose, or for having two little toes.
Original post by MemeworksStudios
Yes. It's a secular religion for neo-Christian fools who can't let go of their babystories. The only objective laws are the laws of nature and mathematics.


That doesn't really make sense. The fact that someone is in favour of human rights law doesn't therefore mean they ascribe to it some kind of natural law quality; it merely means that they support it and believe it is beneficial.

For example, the requirement for each citizen subject to legal proceedings to be allowed a fair hearing. Would you prefer you didn't have that protection? That just seems like basic common sense to me if you are in favour of, and want to buttress, the rule of law and procedural fairness.

Your schtick reminds me of the sort of simple, ignorant people who rail against lawyers until the day they are falsely accused of a crime or are paralysed by being hit by a drunk driver and suddenly they need expert criminal defense or personal injury services.
Original post by AlexanderHam
That doesn't really make sense. The fact that someone is in favour of human rights law doesn't therefore mean they ascribe to it some kind of natural law quality; it merely means that they support it and believe it is beneficial.

For example, the requirement for each citizen subject to legal proceedings to be allowed a fair hearing. Would you prefer you didn't have that protection? That just seems like basic common sense to me if you are in favour of, and want to buttress, the rule of law and procedural fairness.

Your schtick reminds me of the sort of simple, ignorant people who rail against lawyers until the day they are falsely accused of a crime or are paralysed by being hit by a drunk driver and suddenly they need expert criminal defense or personal injury services.


You don't understand, I don't hate lawyers in particular, I think it would be pretty lulzy to disestablish civilisation altogether.

Quick Reply