History Podcasts

Did Socrates earn money (get paid) for philosophy?

Did Socrates earn money (get paid) for philosophy?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I have only read Platos Apology, so I was rather surprised when a recent comment said he "was paid".

A quick look at Wikipedia find this

In The Clouds Aristophanes portrays Socrates as accepting payment for teaching and running a sophist school with Chaerephon, while in Plato's Apology and Symposium and in Xenophon's accounts, Socrates explicitly denies accepting payment for teaching. More specifically, in the Apology Socrates cites his poverty as proof he is not a teacher.

So it does seem there is some question. Was Socrates paid for teaching philosophy?


Crito's Arguments to Socrates

In this newspaper I am inspecting Crito in the areas of framework, main issues, Socratic reversal, athlete/medical professional analogy and the results. The first two are pretty weak. The third, pertaining to Socrates' responsibility to his children is the best.

Crito presents multiple reasons to Socrates for why Socrates should break free. The first two are pretty weak. The third, related to Socrates' responsibility to his children is the most powerful. Crito's first discussion is that if Socrates does not break free, then Socrates will then in turn be hurting Crito in two ways. One Crito will lose a good friend when Socrates dies and Crito's reputation will subsequently be injure too. People won't know that Socrates chose to remain in prison, they will think Crito acquired the opportunity to get Socrates out but that he didn't accomplish that because he had not been willing to spend the money. Get back Crito will receive a reputation for nurturing more for the money than for a pal. This debate only considers the consequences of Socrates' action for Crito. In Crito's second argument, he speculates about why Socrates will not want to flee. He says that if Socrates is bothered that by escaping he will harm his friends who could easily get in trouble for wanting to helping him get away, then his worries are unfounded. They are willing to associated risk this or even something even worse for him, and it is cheap to pay off both guards along anyone who might advise with them, so there will not be much risk. While it might be possible to pay people off, there is still the question of whether it's moral. In his third argument Crito mentions Socrates' responsibility to his children. As their daddy, it is Socrates' responsibility to note that his children are brought up well and informed, and he cannot do that if he's dead. Crito appeals to what's important to Socrates. He highlights that seeking goodness is how Socrates desires to lead his life, and a good man would notice that his children are looked after. Crito says that staying in jail is the simple thing to do, but escaping needs courage, and the right move to make is to be brave with regard to his children.

In respond to Crito's quarrels Socrates considers first, why the thoughts and opinions of almost all is not the main view, second, what the results of escaping would be for the location of Athens, and third whether escaping is an unjust action so that it would damage Socrates' soul. Many of Crito's arguments matter the thoughts and opinions of the majority what will they think if Crito will not help Socrates get away? What will they think if Socrates is not in charge of his children? Socrates argues that the thoughts and opinions of a specialist is more important than the thoughts and opinions of the majority. He gives the exemplory case of someone in training. An athlete does not pay attention to the advice of everyone, but to their trainer. If indeed they listened to open public thoughts and opinions such as taking steroids, eat whatever they want, train 20 hours per day, they could injured their body. Socrates stretches the analogy if indeed they listen to the majority rather than experts they can harm their souls, the part of somebody who is ruined by wrong activities and benefited by right ones.

Socrates' most fundamental principles that the really important thing is never to live but to live well. Therefore, he considers whether it is morally right to pay off the guards and escape. He begins responding to this problem by considering the consequences for the town. He says that the laws and regulations and the town could be destroyed if he escaped. Legal judgments could lose their power if they weren't abided by private people, and a city without laws and regulations would not continue to be intact for lengthy. Socrates also thought he would be harming the condition of his heart by escaping. He thought his spirit would be harmed because he assumed that by harming the city he would be harming his heart. Being in charge of harm to others is something that triggers injury to one's heart and soul. He also would have suffered harm to his heart because he broke an contract. He made a tacit arrangement to follow the laws and regulations of Athens because he resided under them for seventy years, lifted his children under them, and didn't make an effort to persuade the location to change them.

Socrates himself highlights that this can be an wrong assumption. He says that Crito overlooks the likelihood that his friends would be both prepared and capable of delivering his children up. If he were to flee, he does not think it would be in his children's best interest to raise them there, because there they might be looked at foreigners. If he escaped he would ask his friends to manage his children in Athens, and there is no reason why they should manage them if he escapes however, not if he dies.

Those who have been known to have aided him in making his break free would be motivated into exile or lose their house and be deprived of citizenship. If he should go to 1 of the neighboring locations, such as Thebes or Megara, he would be thought to be an enemy and all of their patriotic individuals would take a look at him poorly. Furthermore, they would dispute that anyone who has broken the regulations would also be a corrupter of the young and foolish part of humanity. If Socrates is going away from well-governed areas to Crito's friends, his reception there would be no better, for the individuals would ridicule him for preaching sentiments about justice and virtue but then betraying everything that he has educated in order to find a little longer life. By refusing to escape, Socrates can depart from this life in innocence, a victim rather than a doer of evil, and a victim, not of the laws but of men. Alternatively, if he decides to break the covenants and contracts he has made, the residents of the state of hawaii, including his own friends, will despise him.


Do You Need to Be a Pro?

One of the main concerns of being a freelance writer is that you need a background in writing or you need to be a professional. While those things can help anybody can be a freelance writer.

If you’re a terrible writer then you should definitely get to work on a blog because writing on a blog is great practice. Spend some time honing your craft for a bit and gaining an understanding of effective writing.

Most writing simply comes down to research and knowing how to write awesome headlines.

All of these sites have editors to check your work so don’t get too hung up on messing up some things.


2. Does the Para App Help You Make More Money?

That really depends on how you choose to evaluate delivery offers.

Nothing in and of the app itself actually makes more money for you. What the app gives you is information.

The ability to make more money is tied to how you use that information.

Where the Para app could make more money for you is when it reveals higher pay on a delivery you might reject as offered by Doordash. If the offer isn't enough as displayed, but you see it pays quite a bit more, you are able to make more because you didn't reject what would have been a higher paying order.

Para helps you avoid missing those hidden higher paying deliveries.

If you are selective with what deliveries you offer, Para MAY help you earn more. (I'll get into that &ldquomay&rdquo a bit more shortly)

However, if you are less selective, or if a $7 or $8 delivery offer is one you would normally accept, Para may not make much difference in whether you take the offer. I say that because most times that the tip is hidden, the offer is already at or above that amount.

There are some rare instances where Doordash has a hidden extra on lower offers, such as when they only offer $3 for a delivery. I find those to be very rare. However, if it's something you would normally decline, and then you find out it actually pays $15 or $20, that information is obviously going to help you earn more money.


The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

There's an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.

It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.

So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn't why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?

Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

That level of turnover is hugely expensive: not just the downtime of the production line but obviously also the training costs: even the search costs to find them. It can indeed be cheaper to pay workers more but to reduce the turnover of them and those associated training costs. Which is exactly what Ford did. As Paul Krugman points out, the effects are obvious:

But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies" -- and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish.

While that's talking about the living wage argument it applies here as well. The point is not so as to be paying a "decent wage" or anything of that sort: it is to be paying a higher wage than other employers. That gets your workforce thinking they've got a good deal (for the clear reason that they have got a good deal) and if the workers think they've got a good deal then they're more likely to turn up on time, sober, and work diligently. They're more likely to turn up at all which was one of the problems Ford was trying to solve.

It's also not true that the offer was of $5 a day in wages. It was all rather more complicated than that:

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

Outside of the military it's difficult to think of an American workforce that would be willing to accept such paternalism even if wages were doubled today.

So it wasn't $5 a day and it was done actually to reduce total labour costs by reducing labour turnover. And as a final nail in the coffin of the argument that it was done so that the workers could afford the cars, there's this.

Car production in the year before the pay rise was 170,000, in the year of it 202,000. As we can see above the total labour establishment was only 14,000 anyway. Even if all of his workers bought a car every year it wasn't going to make any but a marginal difference to the sales of the firm.

We can go further too. As we've seen the rise in the daily wage was from $2.25 to $5 (including the bonuses etc). Say 240 working days in the year and 14,000 workers and we get a rise in the pay bill of $9 1/4 million over the year. A Model T cost between $550 and $450 (depends on which year we're talking about). 14,000 cars sold at that price gives us $7 3/4 million to $6 1/4 million in income to the company.

It should be obvious that paying the workforce an extra $9 million so that they can then buy $7 million's worth of company production just isn't a way to increase your profits. It's a great way to increase your losses though.

The reason for the pay rise was not as some of our contemporaries seem to think it was. It was nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy the products. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labour force: for, yes, in certain circumstances, raising wages can reduce total labour costs.


Where the Money Goes

If we've done our calculations correctly, the total money lost has to equal the total money gained and the total number of stocks lost has to equal the total number of stocks gained. Martin, who gained $50, and Company X, who gained $30, have collectively gained $80, while Rachel, who lost $65, and Becky, who is sitting on a $15 investment, collectively lost $80, so no money has entered or left the system. Similarly, AOL’s one stock loss is equal to Becky’s one stock gained.

To calculate the net value of these individuals, at this point, one would have to assume the current stock exchange rate for the stake, then add that to their capital in the bank if the individual owns stock while subtracting the rate from those who are down a share. Company X would, therefore, have a net value of $15, Marvin $250, Rachel $435, and Beck $1000.

In this scenario, Rachel's lost $65 has gone to Marvin, who gained $50, and to Company X, who has $15 of it. Further, if you change the value of the stock, the total net amount Company X and Becky are up will be equal to $15, so for every dollar the stock goes up, Becky will have a net gain of $1 and Company X will have a net loss of $1 — so no money will enter or leave the system when the price changes.

Note that in this situation nobody put more money in the bank from the down market. Marvin was the big winner, but he made all his money before the market crashed. After he sold the stock to Rachel, he'd have the same amount of money if the stock went to $15 or if it went to $150.


The Importance Of Money

Oscar Zach is a red piller who detests white knights/manginas, whom he believes to be the actual source from where feminism draws its power to subvert men in modern society. He enjoys philosophy, archery, target shooting, learning new languages, globe-trotting and the company of non-hypocritical, feminine women.

Money dictates the flow of human living in the modern world. Without money, life is often difficult and painful, and even more for a man. It helps to create freedom. I’ve seen both want and abundance of money in life, and I can say one of the most depressing times in life was when I was without money.

The importance of money

Money is a non-negotiable, indispensable commodity in every person’s life. The possession of money is itself a resource and the usage of it can help to acquire resources. All the things we use in our lives have monetary value, whether directly or indirectly. Money’s power is indisputable after the power of faith or self-belief in human life.

Money can buy you happiness

With money, you can often rule today’s materialistic world. If you have enough money, poverty will never approach you. Contrary to what most people think, it is not money or the love of money which is the root of evil—it is greed, a love of power and authority, poverty, and a fear of want which are often the roots of evil in this world. Money is just a humble agent in this scenario, because money helps to create power and authority. Money helps to eliminate poverty. Money helps to eliminate wants in life, especially if the wants are related to commercial and even human interaction, as most human interaction in the modern world is now commercialized.

Money can buy you health

You can maintain your health even though you cannot rule your health. Money helps you with that. With modern healthcare increasing human longevity, money can help you to improve your health by letting you lead a comfortable, healthy lifestyle if you spend money on healthcare, whether it may be spending on diet and nutrition, working out, or just taking medication. A lot of people globally postpone health checkups because they don’t have enough money to pay for health care bills. Again money’s role in health maintenance is irrefutable.

Money is an aphrodisiac

Women and money are often inseparable. Money often helps to create power and reputation. Reputation creates authority. All chicks dig authority.

Money may not always be able to get you or retain the women you want, but it will definitely get you the women who want you for it. And there will always be women who will want men for cash. Whores have abounded throughout human history. Hell, whoredom is the oldest profession in humanity. The oldest profession itself is a proof enough how women gravitate to resources (cash), and offered and offer sex in return. Resources often open a woman’s legs faster and more easily than game.

Even if your woman says she doesn’t need cash and she loves you for what you ‘are’ as a man, the question to be raised is: are you a naked man living in a jungle using nothing? You’re using the internet to read this post. Who’s paying for it? Even if you’re not, someone is.

Your identity as a man is your personality. What is your personality? Your personality is the cumulative accumulation of your wisdom, skills, character, education, upbringing, talents, career and style. How were these acquired? For free?

You acquired an education. Whether you actually went to a university or you studied at home, you are still ‘paying’ for it, or someone is ‘paying’ for it.

You go to the gym to build yourself, or you work out at home. You adopt the perfect diet to build yourself up, with the right supplements. Who’s paying to buy your meals and gear? Or is someone paying for you? Either ways, money is still working in the background.

You’re taking care of your body using the latest items for male grooming. You’re getting the best wardrobe to accentuate your style. You’re reading online and learning from someone on how to develop your style and game. Either ways, either you’re paying for it or someone has already paid for it which they’re passing onto you. Money again works in the background.


Sites That Pay You to Write About Education

28. Teaching Tolerance – $1 per word

This is a magazine geared towards teachers.

Their audience is a national audience of PreK-12 educators interested.

The kind of content they look for include:

They pay up to $1 per word.

29. American Educator – up to $300 per post

American Educator is a quarterly magazine funded by the American Federation of Teachers.

It covers all aspects of teaching from the perspective of policy formulation, labor, trends, etc…

You are paid up to $300 per accepted article.


Mapping US Foreign Aid by Country

Donald Trump ran for President on the concept of “America First.” What does this mean in practice for his governing philosophy and foreign policy? Drastic cuts to foreign aid expenditures, namely, the money the U.S. sends to other countries for humanitarian, developmental and economic reasons. This made us wonder how much foreign aid the U.S. currently sends overseas and where the money is going, so we created a new viz.

We compiled data from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for 2016, the last year for which numbers are available. USAID keeps track of how much money U.S. taxpayers send overseas, what activities we spend it on, and why. We changed the proportions of a world map to represent the countries receiving the most money (the larger the country appears in the viz, the more money it receives). We also color-coded each one according to the purpose of the funds. Mapping USAID activities in this way shows you exactly how and why the U.S. sends money overseas.

First off, you can see a lot of large, red countries on the map from the Middle East, where the U.S. spends billions of dollars each year to reduce conflict, maintain peace and promote stability. This is because foreign aid tends to follow U.S. troop deployments. In fact, the number one and number two recipients of aid—Iraq and Afghanistan—remain major theaters of combat for hundreds of U.S. soldiers. Israel, the third highest recipient on our list, continues to be a strong U.S. ally. President Trump is considering whether to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, so we suspect the $3.1B Israel receives is likely safe from cuts. In total, the U.S. spends more than $18.3B in conflict reduction.

The second obvious trend in our map is a group of medium-sized pink countries, representing American expenditures for health and population measures across Africa in countries like Kenya and Ethiopia. Taken as a whole, these countries account for $7.2B in expenses. The third most expensive category is for emergency situations, like earthquakes and floods, totaling $6.1B.

At first glance, when you read that the U.S. is sending billions of dollars to other countries, it seems like a ton of wasted money. The total budget for USAID in 2016 that we’ve accounted for here represents $36.1B. Is that a lot of money for an economy with a GDP of $19.5T? What if you consider that President Trump’s budget for the Defense Department alone costs $639B? If these expenditures prevent future conflicts and keep people from starving, perhaps it’s money well spent.

With those caveats in mind, here are the top ten recipients of USAID funds for 2016, broken down to the exact dollar amount.

1. Iraq: $5,281,179,380 (for conflicts, peace and security)

2. Afghanistan: $5,060,306,051 (for conflicts, peace and security)

3. Israel: $3,113,310,210 (for conflicts, peace and security)

4. Egypt: $1,239,291,240 (for conflicts, peace and security)

5. Jordan: $1,214,093,785 (for conflicts, peace and security)

6. Kenya: $1,143,552,649 (for population policies and reproductive health)

7. Ethiopia: $1,111,152,703 (for emergencies)

8. Syria: $916,426,147 (for emergencies)

9. Pakistan: $777,504,870 (for conflicts, peace and security)

10. Uganda: $741,326,448 (for population policies and reproductive health)

The United States sends billions of dollars overseas for a variety of different reasons, but when you look at this list it’s clear that many of these are poor and war-torn places. None of the top twenty countries are even located in the Western Hemisphere. Regardless if you think these are smart investments or wasted dollars, it’s a good idea to know where and why the government spends this much on the other side of the planet.


Who Will Pay You For Your Photos?

There are many different ways you get paid for pictures. Some websites / internet companies will buy your photographs outright by paying upfront for each one you submit and that they accept and display on their website. You do not own them in any way post your outright sale. Some other ones pay you by the number of downloads it generates.

In my opinion, getting paid for photos by the download is a better way, not only because you can track the success of your photographs but also because your earnings are higher.

Let us look at it in further detail. Hypothetically, if you submit 100 photos and you get paid $1 per download and you get 1 download a day for each, you are pocketing $100.00 a day. Imagine over a year if you submit 500 photos and you average even a minimal 5 downloads for each photograph every day that makes a whopping sum that you have earned for yourself.

Plentiful I would say! Get paid to take photos is easy too. The conventional rate is between .25 and .50 a photograph. The more famous a photographer the better his earning becomes over a period of time.



Comments:

  1. Nuri

    I'm sorry, but in my opinion, you are wrong. I'm sure. I propose to discuss it. Write to me in PM, it talks to you.

  2. Gazshura

    He withdrew from the conversation

  3. Faular

    In it something is. I will know, I thank for the information.



Write a message