u/ImportanceOk3837

So, today I've finished reading both Clitophon and Phaedo and wanted to talk about them briefly.

Clitophon is weird, its incomplete and Socrates says nothing much in it, while Clitophon basically calls him out for being a great speaker when talking about virtues but not really coming to practical conclusions.

The text is likely incomplete, I guess, but I like to think that things got akward after that and Socrates just stood there looking at Clitophon.

Now, about Phaedo:

Damn, I don't know what to say except that its both beautiful to imagine and consider the hope for a better existance that Socrates lays out, how he correlates life and death and, when he talks about his theory of what the Earth looks like and the rivers of the underworld is very mystical and gripping.

I don't know if I am just choosing to believe of if he truly persuaded me but I'm starting to have the same hopes - that knowledge, detachment and philosophy will not just lead me to a better life, as I know they will, but a better afterlife as well.

Growing old won't be so painful, dying won't be so agonizing, and in leading a good life you receive a good death, and well see where the rivers of the underworld take us.

I've just finished reading Ion and I am now 10 pages away from finishing Phaedo.

So, after reading Ion, this is what I've gathered:

Ion doesn't know what he is talking about, but that's alright because rhapsodes (and prophets) don't know what they are saying either, as their "skill" is actually divine inspiration and channeling the "divine part" of things, instead of doing so of their own accord.

Though the Gods may also endow people with certain skills?... I think Socrates may be arguing that artistic skills are actually divinely inspired and therefore not exactly skills like the practical ones such as charioteering, as he mentions in the text.

Ion tries to argue having skills similar to other professions, knowing how a slave and a general should talk but Socrates is having none of that and asks why them isn't he a general to which he gives a variety of answers but doesn't go anywhere, with Socrates concluding that Ion is not skilled in anything but can draw from the divine part of Homer pretty well.

So,

Having a skill or expertise includes both knowing what you are talking about and knowing enough to discern if/when others are correct or wrong, giving good or bad opinions when talking about the same or similar things.

Is there anything I could be missing or forgetting?

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.

Sup people.

I need some feedback on my homebrew acestries I made.

I am mostly looking for general feedback since this is my first time making homebrew ancestries for OGD&D and I think it might be good to bounce my ideas off of someone else in this case.

For full disclosure, I used S&W WB as a base but also used Greyhawk for the Half-Elf, and either statblock or my imagination for the other two.

The level 4 limitation that seems to be a theme here is something I did without noticing. I guess that's just where my head was at.

Gnomes freely advance as magic-users, and as fighters up to lvl 4. Gnomes can’t wear heavy armour. Can identify and appraise mundane treasure. They cant be turned to stone but suffer -2 against Spells & Staves.

Half-Elves advance as fighters/magic-users up to lvl 8 and as clerics up to level 4. They can use the elf variant class. Half-elves spot secret and hidden doors as elves do, and speak the same languages.

Hobgoblins freely advance as fighters/clerics, and as magic users up to lvl 4. No weapon restrictions as clerics/magic-users. +1 to-hit/dmg when fighting elves, dwarves, goblins & halflings.