There are people throughout history that little was known of their personal life. In ancient Greece it is rumored that all three famous philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) were pedophiles. No one knows for certain, however there are some unrecognized instances...
There’s no reliable historical evidence to support the claim that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were pedophiles. Here are the key points grounded in scholarship and primary sources:
Socrates: Ancient sources (Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes) discuss his philosophical method, moral views, and relationships with younger men as part of the classical Greek practice of paiderastia—a socially structured educational and mentorship relationship between adult men and adolescent boys. Modern historians emphasize that pederastic practices in classical Athens were culturally specific and not equivalent to modern definitions of sexual abuse; accusations of sexual misconduct against Socrates in the trial-era sources concern moral corruption and impiety rather than documented criminal sexual behavior.
Plato: Plato’s dialogues present philosophical treatments of love, desire, and the mentor-student relationship (most famously in the Symposium). Plato often treats love between men and younger males as a possible spur to ethical and intellectual development, but his texts are philosophical dialogues, not biographies; they cannot be read straightforwardly as evidence of his personal sexual conduct. Many scholars also argue that Plato’s later writings move toward a more spiritualized, non-physical ideal of love.
Aristotle: Aristotle’s surviving works are practical and philosophical treatises (ethics, politics, biology) with little autobiographical detail. There is no reliable primary-source evidence documenting his private sexual life. Later anecdotes (often centuries later) are generally considered of low credibility.
Important context:
Ancient Greek social norms about age, gender, and sexual relations differ greatly from modern norms; terminology and practices don’t map cleanly onto contemporary categories like “pedophilia.”
Biographical detail for all three is sparse and often mediated by followers or opponents who had intellectual or political motives; assertions about private sexual behavior are typically speculative and not well supported by primary sources.
Scholarly consensus treats claims about such specific sexual allegations as unproven unless supported by trustworthy contemporaneous evidence.
Yet notice that even AI gives them an out in the highlighted area.
@DeWayfarer Very interesting. I do know in ancient Greece it was a cultural norm for a much older gentleman to take a young boy under his tutelage. To teach him about life and sex. What we now consider abhorrant now was accepted and encouraged then.
The Australian artist Rolf Harris was a hugely popular entertainer on childrens TV in the UK from the 1970s until the 1990s. He inspired millions of children (including me) to be bold and adventurous in visual art. Towards the end of his life he was prosecuted and jailed for child sexual offences against friends of his daughter. Whatever my feelings about his crimes, I can't simply "unlike" art that is intrinsic to my soul.
@0uijaFinger Perhaps a little different to the Jackson analogy. Here the production of the piece of art may have depended upon objectionable behaviour in a way that Jackson's music did not obviously.
@bijouxbroussard to be fair it is titled a "Daily Mail Exclusive" so it may just be horseshit, however I'm pretty ok at sussing out AI images so I do believe its legit.
Everybody has their own threshold. Whatever you can say about MJ, the man did not have a regular childhood and was abused by his parents and probably his siblings too. That's not a justification for anything he may or may not have done, but it provides context in an environment of cyclical abuse.
I draw a line between that and a person who clearly chose to victimize because they could.
So interesting you brought this question to light, I was just thinking about this. Do we judge them for being human, for making taboo mistakes? ( I struggle here with the word "mistake" not sure what word to use here.) Do we see their work in new eyes when their transgressions see the light of day? Would their work be the same if they were better humans? I don't know the answers. I do still love Picasso although he was a terrible human. I will watch Annie Hall though I detest Woody Allen. Your thoughts, BB?
I have artists that I can't abide and their personality/crimes taint their work for me.
But I can watch Errol Flynn movies - even though he had sex with underage females. Or really any artist - as many are entititled and insufferable - it's just that if they are alive - or only recently deceased the taint is there for me.
Who know's MJ's work was very good - and it may stand that test of time. Is so, then there's no harm or foul.