How significant was Socrates?

[tonyrey]

http://www.philosophypages.com/vy/socrd.jpg

Interesting article, Tony. It might be fascinating to ask the author questions about what he or she wrote. For example, the author states that the agreements between Socrates and Jesus were merely superficial, as they disagreed on nearly everything.

One example cited: Jesus taught that wrongdoing was sin, but Socrates taught wrongdoing was ignorance. I’d ask the author, “Are these two ideas really opposed to one another?” Lets you and I consider that question. Socrates said to one of his friends:
Evils, Theodorus, can never pass away; for there must always remain something that is antagonistic to good. Having no place among the gods in heaven, of necessity they hover around the mortal nature, and this earthly sphere. Wherefore, we ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away means to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him, means to become holy, just and wise. But O, my friend, you cannot easily convince mankind that they should pursue virtues or avoid vice, not merely in order that a man may seem to be good, which is the reason given by the world.

Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.

(Theaetetus, 176)

What do you think, Tony? If a man like Socrates genuinely desires to be like God and sincerely tries to be like God, and if the God he seeks to imitate is in no way unrighteous, then what would be the cause of him failing to be like God by committing some unrighteous act?

For example, let’s say Socrates believed, as some believe he believed, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. (Socrates was married and had children, but he also knew several homosexual men and had some as followers.) Now on the other hand, followers of Jesus, such as Saint Paul the Apostle, disagreed and saw homosexuality as wrong. Upon what would you say Socrates’ acceptance of homosexuality was based–ignorance, or something else?

If he sincerely believed homosexual acts are legitimate he failed to be like God through ignorance but we cannot judge to what extent - if at all - he was culpable. We all fail to be like God in some respect because we are fallible but we can be relatively perfect if we strive to do what we are convinced is right.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tony

If he sincerely believed homosexual acts are legitimate he failed to be like God through ignorance but we cannot judge to what extent - if at all - he was culpable. We all fail to be like God in some respect because we are fallible but we can be relatively perfect if we strive to do what we are convinced is right.

As I said earlier, I think it is not correct to say that Socrates approved of homosexuality, though many homosexuals today like to suggest it. Alcibiades is the most famous homosexual that Socrates knew, and Socrates indicates in one of the dialogues that he declined Alcibiades offer to lie down with him. That doesn’t mean that Socrates condemned sodomy, but it did lay the foundation for the later myth that Socrates was homosexual.

In his last years, in the Laws, Plato really lit into sodomy as a depraved activity.

 

[spockrates]

I have not said God holds people accountable for things they do that they do not know are wrong. In this context “culpable ignorance” means we don’t know all the consequences but we know that what we are doing is wrong.

Even if we don’t think something is wrong we are not always innocent because we may be inconsiderate - which is a moral defect. If some one dies because of our negligence we are guilty of manslaughter.

I see. Sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[spockrates]

**
For example, let’s say Socrates believed, as some believe he believed, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.**

I have read all of Plato’s dialogues, but I don’t remember Socrates affirming homosexuality. Do you have the passage at hand, or do you know which dialogue is supposed to be the source of that view of Socrates?

Yes, I hear what you are saying, Charlemagne. I’m not certain that what some say about Socrates is true. It’s probable that it’s merely a case of guilt by association. I can see how one might get the wrong idea when reading Lysis or Friendship. For it seems Socrates spoke at length with the two young men about the natures of homosexual lust and genuine friendship. I can also see how Symposium might leave the reader with the wrong impression. For the drunk who crashes the dinner party loudly speaks at length about Socrates spurning his sexual advances.

However, the fact that Socrates hung out with gays does not make him homosexual any more than the fact that Jesus hung out with drunks and prostitutes made him alcoholic and a gigalo. Both are misconceptions derived from their associations with and loving acceptance of sinners, I suppose.

And it makes me wonder: If there were openly gay people in ancient Jewish society, would Jesus have accepted them, too? If he did, would more Catholics and other Christians treat gays differently and accept them the way they do other sinners?

 

[spockrates]

spock
**
One example cited: Jesus taught that wrongdoing was sin, but Socrates taught wrongdoing was ignorance. I’d ask the author, “Are these two ideas really opposed to one another?” Lets you and I consider that question. Socrates said to one of his friends:**

In that we try to catechize our Catholic children to the truth, I think there is some merit in what Socrates says.

Yes, but now that I think about it, I ask myself, “What am I saying?” For this occurs to me: If all sin is ignorance, then we would not know what we do is wrong, no matter what wrong we do. If this is the case, and if what Tony and I are considering is also true, then how could God judge any sin, since all would be committed in ignorance? How could Hell be anything but empty?

I think, then we ought to amend our premise to say some sin is ignorance–or committed in ignorance–and those committing such are likely not culpable in God’s eyes. But other sin is committed with full knowledge, and those committing such are culpable in God’s eyes.

What do you think? Does this sound wise?

 

[spockrates]

Tony

If he sincerely believed homosexual acts are legitimate he failed to be like God through ignorance but we cannot judge to what extent - if at all - he was culpable. We all fail to be like God in some respect because we are fallible but we can be relatively perfect if we strive to do what we are convinced is right.

As I said earlier, I think it is not correct to say that Socrates approved of homosexuality, though many homosexuals today like to suggest it. Alcibiades is the most famous homosexual that Socrates knew, and Socrates indicates in one of the dialogues that he declined Alcibiades offer to lie down with him. That doesn’t mean that Socrates condemned sodomy, but it did lay the foundation for the later myth that Socrates was homosexual.

In his last years, in the Laws, Plato really lit into sodomy as a depraved activity.

Perhaps you are right, Charlemagne. But what if you are not? If Socrates was gay, should we discount whatever he did say? (I’m not saying you think we should; just raising the question for consideration.)

It seems to me that Saint Paul the Apostle was a murderer of Christians, yet we accept his words as true. Saint Peter the Apostle was a coward who denied he even knew Christ, but we consider him chosen by God to lead the Church. What one does, does not necessarily discount the truth of what one says, I think you will agree.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

**What one does, does not necessarily discount the truth of what one says, I think you will agree. **

That is very certainly true!

Yet I have noticed a certain tendency among criminals to be liars. We have seen any number of clergy who presented themselves as holy but were really devils in disguise.

Sinners can see and tell the truth. Saints are more likely to.

 

[spockrates]

spock

**What one does, does not necessarily discount the truth of what one says, I think you will agree. **

That is very certainly true!

Yet I have noticed a certain tendency among criminals to be liars. We have seen any number of clergy who presented themselves as holy but were really devils in disguise.

Sinners can see and tell the truth. Saints are more likely to.

Yes, I suppose one who is caught doing wrong is more likely to lie about his actions than one who has done nothing wrong. But is not one who lies also one who knows the truth but will not admit it to others? Now, let us say a specific criminal were sincere and admitted his crime and then gave us logical reasons why he was justified in committing the act and should not be punished for it. If we were sitting on the jury for his criminal trial, would we then be right to reject his reasons on the grounds that one should never believe a criminal? Or would the judge remind us that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

What we are doing here is considering objections raised against Socrates to persuade us not to trust what he says. One such objection we have considered and rejected is this: The idea that he was a homosexual sinner, and so we should not believe him. As we agree, even if he was such, an ad hominem attack against one’s character is fallacious and not a good reason to judge the truth of his beliefs. The reasons why one believes should be considered regardless of the behavior of the believer, I think we both believe.

 

[spockrates]

One example from history why ad hominem attacks are illogical:

Adolph Hitler said, “If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, the masses will believe it!”

If a critic were to say Hitler was a monster and so what he said was untrue, we would be illogical to accept this fallacious reasoning. Before rejecting the premise that people are more likely to believe lies if they are said loudly and frequently, we would need to consider the evidence contrary to this belief.

Something similar might be said of Socrates: At his trial he pointed out that, “…the unexamined life is not worth living… .” If one were to say Socrates was gay, and so we should not believe him, it would not be logical for us to ascent to this unsound reasoning. Instead we might gently and respectfully point out to the critic that the gayness of Socrates (if indeed he was gay) does not determine the truthfulness of his words.

Does this sound logical to you?

 

[spockrates]

It’s worth repeating: The gayness of Socrates does not discredit his words any more than the monsterness of Hitler discredits his. To be objectively rational, we should put aside our prejudices against the speaker and sincerely consider the words spoken.

 

[spockrates]

If he sincerely believed homosexual acts are legitimate he failed to be like God through ignorance but we cannot judge to what extent - if at all - he was culpable. We all fail to be like God in some respect because we are fallible but we can be relatively perfect if we strive to do what we are convinced is right.

Yes, I agree, Tony.



And do you agree, as I think Charlemagne possibly agrees that what Socrates did, does not necessarily discount what he said?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

**What we are doing here is considering objections raised against Socrates to persuade us not to trust what he says. One such objection we have considered and rejected is this: The idea that he was a homosexual sinner, and so we should not believe him. **

My line of attack would first of all be to ask for proof that Socrates was a sodomite. Until we find a passage where he admits to sodomy, or even where he defends it, I do not think “Socrates” and “sodomy” should be in the same sentence. It’s a well known fact that he had a wife and children. This fact should give him credit for being heterosexual. No?

 

[spockrates]

spock

**What we are doing here is considering objections raised against Socrates to persuade us not to trust what he says. One such objection we have considered and rejected is this: The idea that he was a homosexual sinner, and so we should not believe him. **

My line of attack would first of all be to ask for proof that Socrates was a sodomite. Until we find a passage where he admits to sodomy, or even where he defends it, I do not think “Socrates” and “sodomy” should be in the same sentence. It’s a well known fact that he had a wife and children. This fact should give him credit for being heterosexual. No?

True.



I suppose, then we have our answers to that objection.

 

[spockrates]

There is one more criticism of Socrates we should answer before we conclude or dialog, if you want to consider it: It’s the criticism that Socrates taught sin was merely ignorance. Show a man the truth about his behavior, and this realization that he is doing wrong is all he will need to empower him to change.

I don’t know if you’ve heard this argument before, but if you have, please tell me if you think it has merit as a valid reason to reject the Father of Philosophy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock
**
There is one more criticism of Socrates we should answer before we conclude or dialog, if you want to consider it: It’s the criticism that Socrates taught sin was merely ignorance. **

Do you have a specific sentence or two from Socrates where he says this? It would help us to frame a more correct reply.

**I don’t know if you’ve heard this argument before, but if you have, please tell me if you think it has merit as a valid reason to reject the Father of Philosophy. **

It’s clearly impossible to agree with everything Socrates said. I don’t judge him so much for any errors in his thinking. I prefer to judge him for the immense service he rendered philosophy by giving us (with a lot of help from Plato certainly) the Socratic Method for examining any question.

As a rule, I have discovered that intelligent teenagers love to read Socrates because he opens up for them a whole new world of thought and investigation and problem solving that they are not likely to get anywhere else. Later, one does get to outgrow the Socratic Method as a method, but one never can quite outgrow the traces of that method that stay with us and serve us well when we encounter or suspect we have encountered sophistry in the thoughts of others.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I agree, Tony.



And do you agree, as I think Charlemagne possibly agrees that what Socrates did, does not necessarily discount what he said?

Even saints sin…

I’m not saying he was a saint because we don’t have enough information to make a decision but he was certainly a martyr who put the truth first.

 

[spockrates]

Even saints sin…

I’m not saying he was a saint because we don’t have enough information to make a decision but he was certainly a martyr who put the truth first.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Agreed.



I think, then we have the answer to the critic who accuses Socrates of being an unreliable teacher due to an alleged, questionable character.

There is another criticism his critics claim, if you desire to consider it. It’s the one raised by the author of the article you mentioned. That is, Socrates disagrees with Christ and Christianity on essential doctrines of our faith.

I’m not proposing we examine every supposed disagreement, but we might have time to examine one of the most common–the accusation that Socrates believed sin to be nothing but ignorance. The critics say he thought people sinned because they simply did not know any better, and all one needed to do to stop sinning was to discover the truth that the sinful behavior was unwise.

If you would like to pan this stream for nuggets of truth, please tell me what you think of this argument against Socrates.

 

[spockrates]

spock
**
There is one more criticism of Socrates we should answer before we conclude or dialog, if you want to consider it: It’s the criticism that Socrates taught sin was merely ignorance. **

Do you have a specific sentence or two from Socrates where he says this?

http://silouanthompson.net/images/3wisemen.jpg

I wondered that myself, and did some panning in the Internet stream.



Let’s examine what I found to see if it is fool’s gold, or of real value.

The premise was held by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in his Summa Theologica:

This was the opinion of Socrates, who said “every virtue is a kind of prudence,” as stated in Ethic. vi, 13. Hence he maintained that as long as man is in possession of knowledge, he cannot sin; and that every one who sins, does so through ignorance.

summatheologica.info/summa/questions/?q=177&a=890

It was an opinion of Socrates’ beliefs also held by Fredrick Neitzsche in his The Birth of Tragedy:

Consider the consequences of the Socratic maxim: “Virtue is knowledge; a man sins only from ignorance; he who is virtuous is happy.”

And also by Soren Kierkegaard in his Sickness Unto Death.

It seems these three got the idea from Plato’s pupil Aristotle who, in his Ethics has a fictional dialog with Socrates where Socrates argues that virtue is a kind if cognition, while Aristotle disagrees and argues that virtue is instead volition. (I say fictional because I do not believe Aristotle ever spoke with Socrates and was instead using the dialog to argue against the ideas proposed by Plato’s other students. For I’ve heard there was a great deal of debate between them.)

Now Socrates once said, “A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense, so we ought to try to understand him.” And I think we should not discount the teachings of these three wise men, or of their revered father, Aristotle. Yet, I don’t think we should blindly take their word for it, either. We should carefully consider what they, and more importantly Socrates had to say. Only then should we come to our own conclusions, wouldn’t you say?

 

[tonyrey]

I think, then we have the answer to the critic who accuses Socrates of being an unreliable teacher due to an alleged, questionable character.

There is another criticism his critics claim, if you desire to consider it. It’s the one raised by the author of the article you mentioned. That is, Socrates disagrees with Christ and Christianity on essential doctrines of our faith.

I’m not proposing we examine every supposed disagreement, but we might have time to examine one of the most common–the accusation that Socrates believed sin to be nothing but ignorance. The critics say he thought people sinned because they simply did not know any better, and all one needed to do to stop sinning was to discover the truth that the sinful behavior was unwise.

If you would like to pan this stream for nuggets of truth, please tell me what you think of this argument against Socrates.

Socrates could not be expected to have exactly the same views because He died long before Jesus was born. Even though he believed all sin is due to ignorance there is no evidence - as far as I know - that he rejected moral responsibility. We can believe something is wrong without knowing why! The immense complexity of life gives us good reason to think we are often bound to lack knowledge of what we should and shouldn’t do but it doen’t follow that we are totally in the dark.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The problem with the view of Socrates, that wrongdoing is mere ignorance of right doing, is that people who know what is the right thing to do often do the wrong thing. If merely knowing that it was wrong to do a certain act would stop crime, there would be relatively little crime. But most criminals know their crimes are wrong, and that is why they make every effort to conceal them from the light of truth. They even go so far as to persuade themselves by some twisted kind of logic that wrong is right. Socrates never admits to this fact, that wrongdoing can originate in the will rather than in ignorance of what is right. The Christian advantage in explaining the origin of evil is our knowledge of the existence of malignant spirits (devils) that constantly tempt us to do what is wrong even when we know perfectly well we are doing wrong. The argument could be made, I suppose, that the doing of evil acts is made so pleasurable in the doing of them that the intellect is temporarily lost in the fog of temptation. But that is different from what Socrates is saying, which is his view that we would never do these things if we knew them to be wrong or dishonorable and against our best interests. The case of adultery would be the best example to offer here. Every man and woman knows the act to be wrong, yet the will to perform the act is so powerful that it overcomes the light of truth. Evil, then, contrary to what Socrates says, resides mainly in the will rather than in the intellect.