ВЛЭФ (VLEF)

Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Do not forget to pay the debt.

To speak of Socrates is to speak of a chimera. He never left any written words of his own, and the knowledge we possess of him is constructed from the books left by his contemporaries Plato and Xenophon. Socrates was not born a noble, but that didn't lead him to labour. He was a slacker, more concerned with chatting with his colleagues than giving any comfort and attention to his justifiably bitter wife. He was open about his physical attraction to young men, but his greater goal was to lead and enrich their souls. He considered himself a midwife for philosophy, someone with no ideas of his own but an assistant that would help others give birth to their own thought. He was sentenced to death for his incessant questioning and attempt to enlighten Athens of their own unreasonable way of living.

In a different time and place, Brodsky was called a real poet, but lacking in discipline. He elonquently smoked, approaching people with humor, intelligence, and a smile. Memoirs give a full picture of his temperament and character:

Accused of ''parasitism'' in 1964, he was sentenced to five years of hard labor, then exiled to a village in the Arkhangelsk region. The young poet, so vulnerable yet so dignified, who told the judge that he was no parasite, but rather a poet ''who will bring honor and glory to this country.

He is wearing a button-down shirt and corduroys. The very Western corduroys alone are a visual act of rebellion. The most remarkable thing about Joseph Brodksy is his determination to live as if he were free in the eleven time zone prison that is the Soviet Union. In revolt against the culture of ''we'', he will be nothing if no a man who does not think for himself, a man who goes along with the group, is part of the evil structure itself.

Joseph reacts to everything in the intellectual environment. He is in the process of generating ideas and images, seeking previously unnoticed connections and telling you about them as they come to him. He brings intense awareness to the conversation, and his charm is partly explained by the way he acts as if your opinions mattered. Judging from his comments about other poets, he appears to be a driven competitor who is sometimes ashamed of his ambition. He talks we are nothing in the face of death, but he exudes I will conquer.

What a picture these memoirs paint! How socratic Brodsky is! The circumstances — location, century, education, family, profession... — of these two men could not have been more different, yet how similar and kindred they seem to be. The socratic type is marked by a two-fold: First, the ambition for undivided influence, self-affirmation, individuality and control of their world with the powerful apparatus of the mind, flexible in both comprehension and communication of knowledge. Second, a depreciated emotional world and a complete indifference to the prospects of their material and financial activity. Much like the Akhmatovian type, personal glory and legacy are the furthest from the interests of practical life. Both breathe communication and verbal contact with others. The difference is the almighty Word is replaced with the daimon of the Mind.

The influence of Socrates in philosophy and Brodsky in poetry must not be dissociated from their intent. The Will is characterized by a monologic, EXCESSIVE, resultative nature. Ambition, power, control are features they are born with, making any Tsar a politican by blood. Thatcher is only one of the many examples of the type that formally searched for political influence.

Logic is not just the best nature of a “socrates“. The flexible and natural love for communication is subordinated, enslaved to the 1st Will need to dominate. While still being fundamentally dialogical, their reasoning and communication acquires an aspect of result instead of process, as the CONCEPTUALIZATION of the image they seek demands a regal, higher form. Arguing against the 1st Will and 2nd Logic is useless. They do not concede and will keep going until the opponent is left humilliated or resigned. If “napoleon“ is the best coach, and “tolstoy“ is a prophet, the “socrates“ type is the best disputer. Afanasyev said psychosophy isn't destiny, but destiny often leads them to the realm of intellectual dispute such as in law and state affairs.

Graduating in 1947, Thatcher began a brief career as a research chemist, moving to Colchester and then to Dartford, where she was selected as the Conservative candidate at the General Election of 1950. The seat was unwinnable for a Conservative at that time, but she hugely enjoyed the experience, showing characteristic energy and determination.

She became a skilful defender of policies before Parliament, marshalling arguments and statistics with effect. It was a style of speaking that fell short of high rhetoric; she might silence an opponent, but throughout her career as a Conservative frontbencher this most influential of politicians rarely sought to charm an audience and made few concessions to the growing political fashion for wearing hearts on sleeves. Instead she became the archetypal conviction politician, at her best speaking off the cuff, or thinking on her feet in a television interview in combative and plain-spoken style.

In terms of worldview, existence is aligned with both Will and Reason, as Hartmann thought. The Absolute is first of all a blind and unconscious Will, that must be reunited with the Idea, the intellectual and conscious aspect of reality.

No mortal may quit the task of life, but each must do his part to hasten the time when in the major portion of the human race the activity of the unconscious shall be ruled by intelligence, and this stage reached, in the simultaneous action of many persons volition will resolve upon its own non-continuance, and thus idea and will be once more reunited in the Absolute.

Hartmann wrote close to 12000 pages during his lifetime, while Socrates wrote nothing. Is this an individual difference? Or is it a contradiction to their own type? Neither. The reality of the matter is that the 2nd Logic loves verbal contact, and for this reason Rhetoricians dislike writing, an inherently monological activity. On the other hand, others love their own flexible nature, and cannot help but write about all sorts of topics that reach their brain.

The second side of their nature is that of the Dry and Lazybones. Being a 3rd Emotion means having a secret, sensitive nature to the matters of the heart. Speaking about their emotions is difficult and a source of shame. This is why some appear so controlled and sarcastic, the fig-leaf used to cover the fragility of their feelings. Brodksy seems to be an exceptionally rare example of a person that, like Kant, chose to work with their own weakness.

I think Joseph Brodsky should be recognized as an amazing example of such a superakyn. The endless flow of his poems, like a waterfall, where the ends of the lines and stanzas are not ends in the proper sense of the word, but steps through which an inexhaustible current of words rolls, recording almost every minute the slightest shades of the poet’s moods - this is Brodsky’s style.

When Joseph recites his own poetry, he turns into a musical instrument, and the volume and resonance of his voice fill every inch of available air. This voice, coming hrough his handsome Roman nose, is like the man himself, compelling and memorable.

Brodsky is a conquistador by nature, and all the slightly confused smiles and nervous self-deprecation don't conceal that. He is enormously confident about himself as a poet.

He is consistent only within the boundaries of a poem. His attitudes change with his moods as much as they do with further thought.

The flexibility and fluctuation of his moods is part of what the super process Emotion entails. The 3rd Emotion is very aware and attentive to people's reactions, a part of their own need to regulate their temperament. And the sexual nature of Emotion, partially blocked and repressed by the 1st Will (“the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe“ was said of Thatcher) is a tragedy for their intimate life. Love and intimacy come with difficulty, and the indifferent Physics is often too lazy to actively pursue sex (Newton's virginity is enough of a statement on the matter).

The 4th Physics is not only lazy, but also pessimistic. Another aspect of Hartmann's thought is the philosophical pessimism and depreciation of life. Socrates was cheerful, but gladly accepted his death sentence. The legendary Sherlock Holmes was a dedicated detective with a subtle melancholic love for the violin. Gloominess is the internal temperament that often leads the type towards brave risk-taking in the pursuit of power.

A particular example must be talked about: George Berkeley, the founder of empiricism. While that school of philosophy postulates what every sensualist (1st Physics) believes — that all knowledge comes from the senses —, Berkeley's empiricism was paradoxically followed after the idea that the material world isn’t real. It is instead mental perceptions from the mind, that cease to exist once the person is no longer looking or contacting it, making it a great example of how the «socrates» types places the concrete within the world of ideas.

It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?'

The impracticality of the 4th Physics is one of the universal aspects of the type, but so is their recklessness and bravery. Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the Red Napoleon of the Soviet Union, often greeted death during his military career. And as contradictory as it seems for a soviet soldier, he is a good representative of the economic inclinations of the type:

Socialist? Certainly not! What a need for classification you have! Besides, the great socialists are Jews and the socialist doctrine is a branch of universal Christianity. I laugh at money, and whether the land is divided up or not is all one to me. The barbarians, my ancestors, lived in common, but they had chiefs. No, I detest socialists, Jews, and Christians.

The 4th Physics is too indifferent to labour, finances and resources to develop a sensitivity towards the pain of the proletariat. Thatcher’s liberal policies, Brodsky’s hatred for the Soviet regime and Ayn Rand’s "objectivism" all point to an egotism of the self that is not in tension with physical egoism (unlike "lenin").

All things considered, "socrates" is confident and ambitious, but unpretentious in appearance and style, preferring something casual but subtly remarkable. They can put aside anything for a good conversation, and often tire people with their chatter. Their cherished passion is found in music, writing and contact with nature and animals. To love and be loved is their undying desire, but they mock and laugh at the trifles and traps of the heart.

Noteworthy examples of the type:

George Berkeley

John Calvin

Joseph Brodsky

Eduard von Hartmann

Isaac Newton

Socrates

Margaret Thatcher

Mikhail Tukhachevsky

Sherlock Holmes (A Study in Scarlet)

Severus Snape (Harry Potter)