typed and about plato and pythagoras, plato proclaimed with good words, but pythagoras preferred for the better to remain silent, because, and this explanation goes on, god does not have this, does not suffer from this, and generally speaking, there is a russian proverb , silence is golden, the word is silver, therefore in russian culture, in traditional, in ancient russian culture, socrates is... almost the saint justin the martyr said christians before christ before christ igor evgenevich, but for you here’s a personal question, well, i’ll start with that this is precisely pythagoras, who said that silence gold, socrates would be a completely impossible talker, well, in fact, socrates, first of all, is a figure, as they say now, super-promoted, he is the most famous, certainly the most famous, the most famous of all the ancient greeks, even people who have never talked about antiquity did not think about, do not have about...

a historical socrates is possible, you say in your wonderful monograph that you are leaving this question out of brackets, since it, well, in a sense, cannot be resolved, if i remember correctly, and i recently looked through william guthrie, yes, the author of the most, as far as i understand, the most complete book on ancient philosophy in a multi-volume edition, and he, it seemed to me, is very optimistic, guthrie says that in general, this is how he is described , that’s what he was, just plato. he seemed so

, yes, different from xenophon, and he, by the way, gives an interesting quote from schweitzer, guthrie, where schweitzer says that our description of christ is much more reliable, since simple fishermen wrote, the difficulty with socrates is that outstanding people wrote, but plato alone is enough, so between these two, actually designated positions, how solvable is the problem of the historical socrates and how much should it be resolved, since the same event, the trial of socrates, was described and plato and xenophon, in general, these descriptions are different, but this is a description of the same event, but we can make sure that it really happened in history and the trial, condemnation, and execution of the death of the righteous in its the time when we read about the life of socrates with...

to resolve the question of the historical socrates, well , socrates, let’s say, maybe, how many people, so many views, maybe, my view on this is the view of a historian, if we take it from the point of view of strict facts, then the life of socrates in terms of biographical outline is even very well known, his parents are known, it is known that he almost always lived in communities, he was such a homebody, he really didn’t like to leave, he didn’t even like to leave his hometown, even the nearest suburbs, he said , and what i’m there, i’m only interested in people, i’m not interested in anything else, what nature will tell me. it is known that he took part

in campaigns three times, showed military valor, and of course, the last period was especially well known, yes he was hard, and what ’s interesting is that he was a hoplite, which speaks about him as a person, well, not quite such a poor midnight as represents him, because in the armies each warrior acquired armor and weapons at his own expense, the state did not supply this, goplitskaya is a complete mural, let's just say, this panzer, shield, helmet, spear, sword, all this is not cheap and... they could not serve in hoplites, it is possible that at the end of his life he somehow united, i suspect that simply because he was engaged in pure philosophy, completely neglected everyday matters, i probably started the farm, and to be honest, his grumpy exantip in some ways probably nagged him, let’s just say that he was, to put it mildly, a family man, by no means ideal, and then, of course, the events related to his trial, stay in prison and execution, this is known literally in such details, here is the teaching of socrates from the point of view of strict facts - some kind of

elusive thing, i have already said that he, as it were, in the eyes of many, almost embodies his philosophy, in fact, his role in the development of philosophy is enormous, it is impossible to argue even from the fact that the entire history of philosophy is divided into... before socrates and after socrates, but what exactly this role was, this is a very problematic point, let’s say, which would deserve a separate discussion, it is generally accepted , what socrates turned the attention of ancient philosophy to man, but what can be said here is that we discussed kant here not long ago, and indeed, in a sense, kant made such a copernican revolution in philosophy, socrates also made such a... revolution, that is he turned the attention of philosophers from nature philosophy to man, yes, that is, if the treatise of any natural philosopher before socrates, parminides, empidocles was called perifusios on nature, yes, then socrates began

to teach about man, as strictly speaking, this the sophists also did it, protogoras, who said that man is the measure of all existing things, that they exist. as if the teaching of socrates, but in fact in plato, who then recounts to us, in his mature dialogues, this is already the teaching of plato, that is, if for socrates the ideas are the ideas of virtues, first of all wisdom, courage, justice, then for plato the ideas

are of all things, even dirt, even a poker, yes, that is, i think that this is precisely the departure from socrates that plato made, but in general, of course. that's how i understand it, that plato did not like the sophists so much, yes, that partly our attitude towards the sophists has been for a long time, so we looked at them through the prism of plato, if we look at it more objectively, we still need to recognize their merits too, yes, alexey pavlovich, of course , in essence, they, gosparov said the discovery of language, they discovered language, that language is a sphere where there is a lot that is from a person, a person establishes. the names of things, in the bible, adam names, yes, god brings animals to adam, adam gives them names, names, therefore man has power over the tongue, the question is to what limits, and the sophists were often also teachers of

rhetoric, by the way, it is no coincidence that socrates in his apology, when he begins to speak, says that you will not hear from me speech dressed up. study, well, your personality, there, your inner world, pay attention, so to speak, to yourself, yes, but originally it had a completely different designation, it was a famous saying, one might say, this was in the archaic era, this is one of the main slogans throughout life, gnotis auton, know yourself, this would even be engraved at the entrance to the delhi

the temple, this is presented to one of the seven sages, the sources there do not agree, well, it doesn’t even matter, really, initially in the self-archaic sense, what is it to know oneself, this is a kind of subordination here. living beings, a certain subordination of the cosmos, at the top of this subordination are the gods, man, let’s say, occupies far from the highest position in this hierarchy and he must remember this and not rise too high, not strive to become a god, to know himself, in essence speaking, know your place in this world, it’s not that high, to know your place, so you can say a little bit painfully, that...

everything around seemed marvelous for 300 years. you are just a real freak for me, i’ll come up to you, my golden one, and hug you, and i can come up to you myself, fantastic, tomorrow at the first, on the ninetieth birthday of alexander shirvint, go laugh in the garden, together with your boyfriend, well, let’s go to garden, vodka, fresh air, only... the sun, only the sky and the river,

manmaransi, manmaranti, call me harisa, stop biting me, my dear, well, no nibble on me, here, here is a frying pan, so why is it with strings, it’s very fashionable, there won’t be steaks, there will be pancakes, dear lady, forgive the tactlessness of my friends, it’s because of the dampness, you, you and you, and i.. faculty of moscow university igor evgenievich surikov, chief researcher at the institute of general history of the russian

academy of sciences, i am vladimir ligoido, we continue, and if we return to, well, maybe not to the teachings of socrates, to his method, but then, probably, it’s also impossible not to. talk about the method that he described when he remembered his mother, midwife, yes, well, this is strictly speaking, maeftika, maeftika is the art of a midwife, that is. we need to help a person come to the truth, not even give birth to the truth, remember it, because according to socrates, we already know everything, here are births, we just forgot, maybe some kind of birth trauma happened to us, talking with a person in this way , ask him some questions that lead to a search for truth, a person can show the pythagorean theorem itself and generally come to any knowledge, right? that's why socratic dialogue is immortal

a tool - not only knowledge, but education. we know not only the name of socrates' father francis, yes, but also his mother's. yes, and what a great rarity for a rarity. usually, usually, let's just say, the greeks didn't like it when their women were talked about. but this is a special case. she was an extremely rare woman of a public profession, a woman-previous grandmother, that is, as a midwife now puts it, let’s say, that is, usually. women are great in a reclusive life, but when you have such a profession, it just doesn’t work out, you had to go to other houses, to help in childbirth and so on, that is, let's say, this woman was known, because they did not reach our time, well, we can probably assume that she influenced little socrates somehow, since there are up to seven years, but according to - in my opinion, he says in all the dialogues with plato, the co-creator, that it is i who follow my mother, but she took birth , so to speak, physically, and i take birth spiritually, i am with a new thought... so to speak, as they say, here i am helping to be born in the heads of my interlocutors. on

in fact, socrates is one of the most atypical philosophers, a philosopher who did not write philosophical works, and in general wrote almost nothing there at the end of prison before his death, he wrote a little poetry, he wrote a fable, he wrote a hymn in the apalon part, but if you think about it , it’s as if, in essence, there cannot be such a philosopher, what is the main task of philosophers to express their views in writing, and he has a different method, precisely this very oral, oral dialogue. in these dialogues, if by the way you read it, interestingly, carefully read these dialogues, as socrates predicted them, well, the early ideologists said plato, the early ideologists of plato are considered relatively authentic in terms of conveying the view of socrates, that’s where, say, the topic of the dialogue is taken, some value, say, wisdom or courage or piety, and never in the end they don’t find this definition, somehow something always got in the way, they have to leave, so they search, search, search, this is the starting point here, socrates does not give

recipes, he is the one who, as they say, excites the mind, the mind goes away, for this it also, by the way, many did not like, but - the irony of socrates, of course, is a topic that cannot be avoided, not only maeutics, but irony, and dialectics are also elements of the socratic method, and dialectics is understood not in the hegelian sense and not in the marxian sense, yes ? this is how unity is, the struggle of opposites, and dialectics is like the ability to conduct a conversation, like the ability to move through speech, put together statements, irony too... this is not mocking irony or even romantic irony, which carries signs of fatigue, disappointment in life, yes, the collapse of all hopes, and this is positive irony, is also connected with speaking, but perhaps with the fact that socrates models some situations, such as, for example, in the apology, here are all

the inhabitants of athens, improving the young men, and i am spoiling them.

by misunderstanding, he attributes the saying i know that i don’t know anything, he didn’t say it literally like that, let’s say, but in principle, he meant something close, so he spent his whole life with this irony, that i’m so wretched, so to speak, here he is, the only time he threw it away was when he was tried, so then he spoke truly proudly, and this , by the way, was also one of the factors that led to his condemnation; for the first time they saw a different socrates, proud, speaking with a huge sense of self -esteem.

bring small children and so on, socrates begins to laugh at him, it was customary for the judges to humiliate themselves, to beg for their consent, it was not customary to rely on logic, that is , exactly what socrates did, there is such an account that one of the most prominent characters of that time was lyceus , who wrote speeches for others, like lagovorov, so to speak, as it were, he offered to write speeches for socrates for free, socrates said, to me my demonia demonia, i hope we will understand today, to me my demonia, to me my divine voice. forbids me to accept such a favor from you, i can somehow handle the speech myself, he said the speech in a completely different spirit from what was said then, he did not strive to survive, the background directly writes, he would be ready to be, he wanted at that moment to defend the truth, this has also become such a cultural model, yes you you know, we recently discussed the detective genre and detective stories here, so to speak, with colleagues, and i remembered that one of

the american translators at one time drew my attention to the fact that colomba, the hero of the series about colomba, is porfiry petrovich.

the word of socrates as a certain voice of demonia is so scary, it’s just literally something divine, few people know, it’s like daimonion, few people know that the greek word daimon, from which our later demon came, is originally just one of the terms for deity , it's almost also that theos, let’s say, well , there are some nuances, but now i won’t go into them, that is, socrates said that i have a divine voice, for me it started in childhood, a certain voice, plato says this, which to me ... it doesn’t allow me to do something, that ’s when he wants to turn me away from something, i want it, he turns me away from xenophon, another famous student of socrates, who left a memory of him, he has a little differently, what demonic he gives ... and advice as well, that is, not only negative, but positive also plays a role, for some authors it even seems like socrates gave advice to demons and even regarding his friends, let’s say, well

, as i understand it, it’s still one of these deeper explanations and what we can understand by socrates’ demonism - this is a category that, well, at least according to one of the versions, the greeks did not have, yes, this is what we call conscience today, yes, well, heroclitus has a saying, this is with anthropodaic. that is, a person’s character, his deity, and here in this case everything is clear, yes, in a person there is a disposition, there is a character, in a sense , this character controls us. heraclitus was before socrates, so maybe socrates brings some other additional meaning here, but it is quite obvious that daimon is not an oracle, this is not the delphic oracle that alexander the great went to there, which he should. to say, go there, do that, it’s more of an inner voice, and maybe it’s the voice of conscience, where a person knows virtue, listens to his conscience, to

his inner self, whether i’m acting according to virtue, do i correspond to how i believe, how i know, and for socrates, strictly speaking, to believe, to know to act - this is the essence of one thing, yes, he does not share, if you act badly, then you don’t know, then you you are absent. yes, this, by the way, is the most surprising thing, why - i don’t know, it seems to me that it’s difficult for us to perceive today, that is, he, this is some kind of - well, protection, or something, of a person in the sense that someone who does something bad does this , the fact that he does not know how to act, well, just like the word nus, today we will translate as mind, spirit, in our country, the spirit and the mind are divided, the spirit is something religious, yes, and the mind is intellectual, this is science, so, in antiquity it is connected into one thing, socrates, in my opinion, is still standing somewhere, well near

where religion and philosophy were alone, philosophy has just begun to separate and the way of life is also, and the way of life, regarding the virtues of knowledge, this is precisely one of the most important principles, that virtue is knowledge, these many that exist a person who has learned what good is and what evil is, he will never... they especially didn’t like the average communication, what kind of voice does he have that is not divine, why is he the only one communicating with the gods, in fact, the wording of the trial was that socrates introduces new gods, for this he was judged, it was

the demonic that was meant, in any case , demonium is a kind of internal regulator of behavior, and this is really somewhere close to what later appeared and later began to be called conscience, which for the greeks was perfect, the greeks had this concept, the greeks did not have such a word, conscience, the greeks had shame was a regulator, and this is external, and this is external the regulator, as others see, i’ll say. others socrates was absolutely indifferent to what you say, what others say about him, what he showed in particular at the trial, even if we saw, we would think if others would condemn death, condemned, well, so to speak, as if he it was precisely this internal regulator that i listened to, followed his advice, and here , of course , i involuntarily recall the apostle paul, who will later say that it doesn’t matter to me what you or other people think about me, how they judge me, i don’t judge myself, for the judge to my god, yes, of course... well, you can see a certain connection here, well, at the same time, such a slightly protestant attitude, but in antiquity in relation to

traditional greek religiosity, it’s no coincidence that there are versions, i don’t know, maybe me my interlocutor will correct that the real initiators of the trial were the zhirians, that onikon are just extras, but really the priests. the atmosphere on the project is such that it seems that we, too, have become kindred spirits. well, it's just a breath of nostalgia, it was a lot of fun. i i was just so jealous, upset that i don’t sing and, apparently, will never be able to sing with my daughter.

we don’t need a special occasion to get together with our families, two stars, fathers and sons, sunday is on the first, in the new season on the first, a woman is killed, and we are talking about the devil and our hearts are not broken, do you know how she is it's torn, right? the shoulder is given and the elbow is pulled. well, okay, let's speculate, let's say you're a mole, you're wanted, there are leads on you in all parts of the soviet union, and no matter how good your no matter how much preparation you have, sooner or later you will still be identified, and this is a mortal danger. or you have a second very well thought out option of escaping abroad. well , of course, i would run in. what will the moles choose?

here's the question. be careful. “i’m always careful, major, find the head of the security service, have him urgently report to the control room, and mobilize all our employees, everyone you can, the whole version is going to hell, the man was a stutterer suddenly speaks like cicero, i really hope that you you don't have to blame yourself for being didn’t want to help us"? you are a very good shooter. hello, colonel kostenko. confrontation, the premiere of the legendary book by yulian semyonov. today we have gathered our thoughts about socrates, igor evgenevich surikov, alexey pavlovich kozyrev, i am vladimir legoyda. we continue. well, here we go. death. socrates,

i even read a piece to the children, when socrates refuses to escape and communicate with friends, why didn’t socrates take advantage of this opportunity? well, you know, in fact, if he took advantage, it would have distorted? completely imagined. this is so, if my homeland has legally condemned me to death, i must obey the laws of my homeland. excuse me, but he was judged, it was undeserved, it turns out that we are starting on our own. i think the answer here is in aristotle's definition of man, a social animal, dzon politikon. socrates was a social animal; the christian idea

of ​​autonomy has not yet arisen. well, but at this age sometimes some kind of weariness from life arises, maybe it was such a completely conscious move to challenge one’s city, which at the same time was supposed to make people better, remember how gogl wrote in his will: “there is no need to erect monuments to me, but let everyone become better after my death, but it seems that he said

that...” mind, he calls to become better about his name, but here is socrates, who did not know christ, he was a christian before christ, but he did not know christ, nothing else and could not offer his inhabitants how to become better about his name, and his death was, in a sense, such a performance that should have to attract the attention of the people of athens to virtue. i want more, we don't have much time left. i want - very briefly, perhaps, to return to the topic of “christians before christ”, as indeed, yes, some christian thinkers called the greeks, and not only the greeks, but first of all socrates and plato and aristotle, well, after all christianity had a different attitude towards the experience of antiquity, and not only positively, this is what this assessment is connected with, what it meant, what is meant, by the way, to say, this the quote with which we started, yes, which is in the scroll, it is despite the fact that, well, it’s unlikely

to say so, the main thing here was that these were people who knew how to live and lived a virtuous life, it’s unlikely that the idea of ​​similarity was put into it metaphysics or the world order, yes, these are people who followed virtue, although they did not know about eternal life reward, although socrates, generally speaking, in phaedo draws us the prospect of the immortality of the soul, and there is a certain image of heaven, where...

well, of course, not everyone may be advised to read this, it’s difficult, so he already says: so i’m definitely not afraid of death anymore, because i crito says, when how to bury you, bury me, no, he said this: bury him if you catch him, if they

run away from you, let’s put it this way, that is, he is firmly convinced, that he simply passes into another existence, moreover, from a sicker existence into a healthier existence, because the latter is again weak to death, which criton sacrificed to the slaying of a rooster, the oscleing of the god of mortification among the greeks. and to him it is a person who is sick, but healed, as he should would be sacrificed, that is, socrates perceives death as healing, that is, this is already on this last day of his, the last day of his life, fidon becomes a metaphor for the immortality of the soul. mendelssohn then writes his phaedon, mendelssohn’s ideas influence alexander nikolaevich radeshchy, his treatise on man, his mortality and immortality, that is, we can say that here we see something like this...

skovoroda cunningly applies it to the bible, that is, here the bible is an alcibiades icon, you see, here’s another one parallel between antiquity, between athens and jerusalem. in general , what can we say about socrates in russian culture, well, here.

sometimes questions are answered by rebellion, sometimes by prayer, sometimes by anger, yes, and here it is very interesting that shostov’s criticism of socrates, it is somewhere very similar to what nisha wrote about socrates, unfortunately, our time has come to an end, my last question, he said, according to advice, yes, dear viewers will watch us and want something. read more about socrates, in addition to your wonderful book, igor evgenevich, what would you advise, perhaps, first of all, to non -specialists there, people who would just be interested in learning something more about socrates, oddly enough, they don’t like

what golovoo sokratii wrote in the book of eduard davidovich frolov, a historian, professor at st. petersburg university, for example, which i headed the department of antiquity for many years, he has a book, a prometho torch, it is in general... thank you, alexey pavlovich, what do you recommend? well, i. i remember our teachers, yes, and arseny nikolaevich chanyshev, who himself was in some ways a socrates, wrote poetry under the pseudonym arseny the passer-by, he has a wonderful course on history, philosophy of the ancient world, so i entered ancient philosophy through chanyshev, kisidia, feohariy kharlampievich, he was also a greek by birth, a greek pontian, well, i wrote about socrates, so that’s it...

great, thank you very much, dear friends, igor evgenievich surikov, alexey pavlovich kozyrev, i’m vladimir ligoida, today we were gathering with thoughts about socrates. and there are periods in our history that

created for adventure literature, alexandre dumas, for example, conspiracies, intrigues, alcove secrets, the thunder of drums, well , of course, the history of palace coups, first of all, of course, it is not without reason that they are very beloved. our creators of such costume series, god be with him, but the trouble is that too often these series are used to judge the true story, this always confuses me very much, that’s for sure, or based on the novels of valentin pikul, which are not only very distant from the principle of historicism, but also simply contain a lot of historical errors, facts, he generally handled facts, to put it mildly, freely. in general, for a long time this period was considered such a period of timelessness

between peter and catherine, and this is absolutely not true, and this is another reason for this time to be sorted out properly. hello, this is a historical podcast: russia and the west on the swing of history. pyotr romanov is with you. and sergei solovyov. today we will deal with the era of palace coups. well, klyuchevsky dates the era of palace coups.

paradoxical things, klyuchevsky once wrote that during his reign, he loved aphorisms, yes, during the reign of anna ianovna, the germans fell into russia like rubbish from a leaky bag. it seems that the germans, indeed, beron, there, asterman, minich, many others, many really came, so to speak, hunting, as we would say, for a long ruble, but on the other hand, it was under anna that the salaries of foreign specialists were equalized in russian service. and russians, because there were already enough of our own, even

ship captains, out of twenty ships of the fleet, 13, respectively, were already russian , while under petres the attitude was completely different. under elizabeth, well , a university was created, under elizabeth the first russian imperial theater was created, traditions that we still honor, and although it would seem , yes, elizabeth was a cheerful queen, singing and having fun, there is just no order, as it was in... .

he dies very quickly, again the problem, so to speak, with the throne-inheritance, here the so-called supreme council arises, that is, this is a group of influential dignitaries that takes power, in general, according to, so to speak, the law, they actually don't are authorized to decide the issue of inheritance, however, this means there is no way to go...

after anna ivanovna, if my memory serves me correctly, it means that anna ivanovna, dying, leaves -

the third on the throne, he is overthrown or by catherine, the future catherine the second, catherine against her son pavel becoming the heir, only after the death of catherine, pavel comes to power, and he is also killed,

that is, this whole chain demonstrates how turbulent and uh, lawless, in essence , that era was, yes. i would still put the coup against paul i out of the equation, because that in contrast to this, we will now talk about this, the clan nature of the palace coups that took place from 1725 to 1762, the coup against paul is still different, because paul managed to anger an entire social stratum, not individual clans, paul really angered most of the nobility who either participated in the coup or joyfully welcomed it, well, if you remember, so to speak, menshikovo, well, the very beginning of the accession of catherine i, then here the foreigners fully supported menshikov and catherine, although their influence had already was quite large, well, after the era of peter the great, when a lot of foreigners were invited, they were already closer to the throne,

but strictly speaking, they themselves...