"When to Kill the Philosopher" (Excerpt)
by Dr. Monzo
Excerpt: "A fundamental tension between two forces marks every society. These two forces are often referred to by various names, including conservative and liberal, traditionalist and progressive, among others. One side wants to maintain the status quo and uphold traditional values, while the other seeks to make changes and improve the social structure. This fundamental opposition in every human society is not exclusively a left-right divide. This divide existed long before the left-right political spectrum existed. It is also not necessarily a matter of politics. Defenders of the status quo can exist in business, technology, agrarian conglomerates, hypersonic 4th-dimensional alien spaceships (probably), and subreddits.
Here are two facts about the two sides in this divide:
First, one of the sides justifies itself by faith, and the other justifies itself by reason.
Second, one of these two sides is not consistently correct. Sometimes, neither side is.
Socrates Had It Coming: The life and death of Socrates provides insight into this divide. Socrates was wise because he recognized the limitations of his knowledge. He gave himself a standard: if it cannot be demonstrated through reason, there is no way to tell if something is true. He traveled around, asking people questions to find out if anyone had any good reason to know anything. It turns out that nobody had a good reason to know anything they thought they knew. The people of Athens got tired of this, so they killed him.
In his dialogue with Euthyphro, Socrates inquires about the nature of piety. Euthyphro’s father likely murdered a servant, and Euthyphro is on his way to testify against his father. Socrates immediately recognizes that Euthyphro is a pious man. Only a righteous man would put the interests of justice over familial interests.
Recognizing that Euthyphro is pious, Socrates desperately tries to get Euthyphro to explain his piety. He is practicing piety, so he must be able to give a conclusive description of the nature of piety. Euthyphro’s justifications end up relying on the gods. Socrates is dissatisfied. Neither can figure out if the gods love the good because it is good, or if the good is good because the gods love it. Euthyphro eventually becomes annoyed and confused and exits the conversation.
This is not a good thing, at least in the moment. Socrates ultimately confused a good and just man about the nature of goodness and justice. What if Euthyphro, in his confusion, decided not to testify against his father? In the long run, though, it is a good conversation because, presumably, such conversations bring us closer to the nature of goodness. Eventually.
Socrates continues to have these conversations, and the Athenians are becoming increasingly upset. They have a good society going, and this ugly old man keeps accosting people and confusing them. Upper-class young men of Athens think it is cool and probably edgy that Socrates is confusing the lawmakers, businesspeople, and soldiers of Athens about the reasons behind their actions. It is pretty edgy. He is undermining the social order.
Socrates is put on trial. At his trial, he testifies that some guy named Chaerophon asked the Oracle and Delphi who the wisest man ever was. The Oracle says that the gods say Socrates. Socrates testifies that this was the impetus for his inquisitive quest. He knows nothing, so how could he be the wisest? He had to test everyone to see if they knew anything, because then he would have found someone wiser. Socrates spoke to every supposedly wise person and discovered they were not wise; he made many enemies. He testifies that this endeavor served Oracle because he vindicated Oracle's statement by proving that nobody knew anything.
Socrates presents compelling arguments throughout his trial, defending himself against his accusers and speaking the plain, rational truth. And Socrates is right. He states that he will not abandon philosophy, even unto death. He likens himself to Achilles, defending his honor at all costs. His post is philosophy. If he abandons his post, the subsequent dishonor would be worse than death. The fear of death is only the pretense of wisdom. One cannot be certain what comes next or whether it will be worse or better than the present. To choose the assured evil of indignity and dishonor over the possible good of death would be foolish and unwise. He will not quit philosophy because he wants men to focus on the highest things and improve their souls.
Bringing someone to see the light of the good, true, and beautiful can be a slow and painful process. The cave allegory in the Republic teaches this lesson. There may be temporary negative externalities, such as Euthyphro forgetting to testify against his father as he ponders the nature of justice and piety. If everyone stops doing and thinks all the time, who will harvest the crops or defend the city? There is a lot to do and little time for thinking. Socrates is disrupting their productive activities by confusing them and forcing them to think, rather than fulfilling their other duties. But Socrates also makes people more virtuous. This seems like an impasse.
But it is not an impasse. The court makes the optimal decision. By killing Socrates, the court stops his disruption, but it does not stop philosophy. Socrates warns that, by killing him, they will make more people interested in his story, and more people will encourage virtue, wisdom, and thoughtful consideration. Yes! This is what Socrates wants, is it not? Socrates is a nuisance because he interferes with the city's day-to-day affairs. Remove the immediate nuisance, and philosophy continues. And it did. Plato wrote down the dialogues and started a school. Aristotle learned from Plato and also started a school. Philosophy continued."
Full, highly recommended article is here:
No comments:
Post a Comment