How significant was Socrates?

[spockrates]

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.

But Charlemagne, how does one who is self-deceived and persuaded wrong is right really know wrong is wrong?

Reminds me of something Socrates said:

My excellent Cratylus, I myself have been marvelling at my own wisdom all along, and I cannot believe in it. So I think we ought to reexamine my utterances. For the worst of all deceptions is self-deception. How can it help being terrible, when the deceiver is always present and never stirs from the spot? So I think we must turn back repeatedly to what we have said and must try, as the poet says, to look both forwards and backwards.

(Cratylus 428)

It seems to me that the way to become unpersuaded by a lie is to realize the truth. How does it seem to you?

 

[tonyrey]

But Charlemagne, how does one who is self-deceived and persuaded wrong is right really know wrong is wrong?

Reminds me of something Socrates said:
My excellent Cratylus, I myself have been marvelling at my own wisdom all along, and I cannot believe in it. So I think we ought to reexamine my utterances. For the worst of all deceptions is self-deception. How can it help being terrible, when the deceiver is always present and never stirs from the spot? So I think we must turn back repeatedly to what we have said and must try, as the poet says, to look both forwards and backwards.

(Cratylus 428)
It seems to me that the way to become unpersuaded by a lie is to realize the truth. How does it seem to you?

In other words we need to have the courage of our convictions although if we are unreasonable we risk having another type of conviction. That’s why “virtue is knowledge”.

 

[spockrates]

In other words we need to have the courage of our convictions although if we are unreasonable we risk having another type of conviction. That’s why “virtue is knowledge”.

Charlemagne does make an excellent point that people often do wrong when they know better. Yet there are times, it seems when people do wrong because they know no better. I suppose those who have the courage of their convictions will demonstrate this by doing what they believe is right–whether they know what is right or are deceived into thinking wrong is right. One can be sincerely courageous, yet also sincerely wrong. Right?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock
**
Charlemagne does make an excellent point that people often do wrong when they know better. Yet there are times, it seems when people do wrong because they know no better. **

Yes, that is very possible. However, under those conditions they are not sinning.

The vast majority of wrongdoing is deliberately, rather than unwittingly done, wouldn’t you say? So there may be some cases where Socrates’ theory is correct, but I think not in the cases Christians would call “sinful.”

 

[spockrates]

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.

Do you believe, then that Socrates would not agree with Saint Paul’s confession?

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

(Romans 7)

 

[spockrates]

spock
**
Charlemagne does make an excellent point that people often do wrong when they know better. Yet there are times, it seems when people do wrong because they know no better. **

Yes, that is very possible. However, under those conditions they are not sinning.

The vast majority of wrongdoing is deliberately, rather than unwittingly done, wouldn’t you say? So there may be some cases where Socrates’ theory is correct, but I think not in the cases Christians would call “sinful.”

Yes, Jesus seems to agree with you.

39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

(John 9)



If Socrates did indeed believe virtue is merely cognition and never volition, then I’d say you are right. Should we say, then that Socrates definitely disagreed with Saint Paul’s position on his, and our own condition?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock**

Do you believe, then that Socrates would not agree with Saint Paul’s confession?**

It would seem so, especially because Paul is intensely aware of the evil spirits that draw us to do evil when we know we ought to do good. Socrates would almost have to believe in demons to understand that sin resides in the will more so than in the intellect … the will to rebel against the good even when we know we should not. If I’m not mistaken, it is Aristotle who cited the error of Socrates not being able to see that sin is in the will more so than in the intellect. Even so, we can allow Socrates one marginal point: that deliberate sin is often done at moments when the good we ought to do is clouded over by darkness; that is, when the intellect which knows what is good is darkened by the self deceiving the self that a greater good is to be found in sinning. That is precisely what happened in Eden, when the serpent persuaded Eve that by eating the fruit she would become as great as God. She willfully accepted the delusion. She entered moral darkness.

 

[spockrates]

spock**

Do you believe, then that Socrates would not agree with Saint Paul’s confession?**

It would seem so, especially because Paul is intensely aware of the evil spirits that draw us to do evil when we know we ought to do good. Socrates would almost have to believe in demons to understand that sin resides in the will more so than in the intellect … the will to rebel against the good even when we know we should not. If I’m not mistaken, it is Aristotle who cited the error of Socrates not being able to see that sin is in the will more so than in the intellect. Even so, we can allow Socrates one marginal point: that deliberate sin is often done at moments when the good we ought to do is clouded over by darkness; that is, when the intellect which knows what is good is darkened by the self deceiving the self that a greater good is to be found in sinning. That is precisely what happened in Eden, when the serpent persuaded Eve that by eating the fruit she would become as great as God. She willfully accepted the delusion. She entered moral darkness.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uW+9IDI4L.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01.jpg

Like Eve, perhaps Socrates, then was–as he himself sometimes feared–self-deceived, or worse yet, under some demonic influence! As we have discussed, great in wisdom are the men who have given testimony against him–Aristotle, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Aquinas. The prosecution’s case against him is strong, but should we, the attorneys in charge of Socrates’ defense give up and advise our client to plead guilty?

I’m reminded of the words of another wise man:

In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.

(Proverbs 18:17)

Shall we advise our client to not take the stand, or shall we allow him to speak in his own defense, as he did during the trial that led to his conviction and death? What would Socrates do?

 

[tonyrey]

Charlemagne does make an excellent point that people often do wrong when they know better. Yet there are times, it seems when people do wrong because they know no better. I suppose those who have the courage of their convictions will demonstrate this by doing what they believe is right–whether they know what is right or are deceived into thinking wrong is right. One can be sincerely courageous, yet also sincerely wrong. Right?

Sincerity is essential but so is humility. Socrates posed questions as an antidote to superficiality - a lesson those who reject the importance of philosophy have yet to learn. Science does not - and cannot go - further than the material world to the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love.

 

[spockrates]

Sincerity is essential but so is humility. Socrates posed questions as an antidote to superficiality - a lesson those who reject the importance of philosophy have yet to learn. Science does not - and cannot go - further than the material world to the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love.

Agreed.



We should, however give credit to science for giving us the Scientific Method. As the Socratic Method and Logic help us reason correctly, so does the method of scientists help us investigate and verify scientific theories about the physical universe correctly. Don’t you agree?

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed.



We should, however give credit to science for giving us the Scientific Method. As the Socratic Method and Logic help us reason correctly, so does the method of scientists help us investigate and verify scientific theories about the physical universe correctly. Don’t you agree?

Of course. The success of science is overwhelming evidence that the power of reason is not a freak product of purposeless events but a fundamental feature of reality. The survival value of advanced intelligence is a hopelessly inadequate explanation which ignores the danger of extinction by scientific inventions. It is responsible for destruction and self-destruction as well as creation and self-enrichment.

 

[spockrates]

Of course. The success of science is overwhelming evidence that the power of reason is not a freak product of purposeless events but a fundamental feature of reality. The survival value of advanced intelligence is a hopelessly inadequate explanation which ignores the danger of extinction by scientific inventions. It is responsible for destruction and self-destruction as well as creation and self-enrichment.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Police-officer-aiming-gun-v2-300.jpg

I suppose we might say the that science is a tool that is neither good nor evil, and so too is philosophy. A pistol in the hand of a criminal might do great harm to the innocent, but in the hand of a police officer it may stop the criminal from doing any harm.

The Scientific Method in the hand of a moral scientist might find a cure for some devistating disease, but in the hand of a scientist of immoral character create a biological agent that might kill millions. Same method, different results–one evil, one good.

Socrates said the same was true of those who imitated his Socratic Method–and in some of the Socratic Dialogs he locked horns with them. They used his method to confuse others and conceal the truth from them, all for the sake of making themselves look good. They won arguments but lost the truth.

However, in the hands of a true lover of wisdom, or philosopher, Socrates’ method of asking why people believed–and letting their own answers uncover the truth–did the good of helping both the questioner and the questioned discover the truth and become more wise and of better character. Same method, different results–one evil, one good.

For what it’s worth, that’s my opinion, and I think we panning the same stream in which this nugget of true gold was found.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

I suppose we might say the that science is a tool that is neither good nor evil, and so too is philosophy.

I would revise that to say:

**I suppose we might say the that science is a tool that is either good or evil, and so too is philosophy. **

 

[spockrates]

spock

I suppose we might say the that science is a tool that is neither good nor evil, and so too is philosophy.

I would revise that to say:

I suppose we might say the that science is a tool that is either good or evil, and so too is philosophy.

I suppose that depends, Charlemagne on how one defines good and evil. When speaking of morality, would we be right to say a pistol is morally right or morally wrong?



Or perhaps my anology is not a good one?

 

[Skadi]

I would say also that we use them intercalaly, like strategy and tactics.

Strategy and tactics are not the same thing but debit two of the three levels of military thinking (the intermediary between them is a German word roughly translated operational). Tactics are used by small groups or individuals to achieve local goals, which make up a strategy. A general plans strategy, his lieutenants and NCOs plan tactics.

 

[billcu1]

Strategy and tactics are not the same thing but debit two of the three levels of military thinking (the intermediary between them is a German word roughly translated operational). Tactics are used by small groups or individuals to achieve local goals, which make up a strategy. A general plans strategy, his lieutenants and NCOs plan tactics.

You might find it interesting. When the kings of old said they ruled for their god that’s what they meant. Socrates was Hera. In human form of course. The Greeks murdered their own goddess.

 

[tonyrey]

http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Police-officer-aiming-gun-v2-300.jpg

I suppose we might say the that science is a tool that is neither good nor evil, and so too is philosophy. A pistol in the hand of a criminal might do great harm to the innocent, but in the hand of a police officer it may stop the criminal from doing any harm.

The Scientific Method in the hand of a moral scientist might find a cure for some devistating disease, but in the hand of a scientist of immoral character create a biological agent that might kill millions. Same method, different results–one evil, one good.

Socrates said the same was true of those who imitated his Socratic Method–and in some of the Socratic Dialogs he locked horns with them. They used his method to confuse others and conceal the truth from them, all for the sake of making themselves look good. They won arguments but lost the truth.

However, in the hands of a true lover of wisdom, or philosopher, Socrates’ method of asking why people believed–and letting their own answers uncover the truth–did the good of helping both the questioner and the questioned discover the truth and become more wise and of better character. Same method, different results–one evil, one good.

For what it’s worth, that’s my opinion, and I think we panning the same stream in which this nugget of true gold was found.

I agree with you. Both philosophy and science are essentially good because they are intended to discover the truth, the difference between them being that science is restricted to the truth about physical objects and events.

Socrates is highly significant because his belief that truth is knowledge implies that reality is fundamentally good. If evil is ultimately due to ignorance the Problem of Evil is an illusion because ignorance is inevitable. To claim that ignorance is not inevitable is a delightful example of ignorance! How could one possibly know everything?

 

[spockrates]

I agree with you. Both philosophy and science are essentially good because they are intended to discover the truth, the difference between them being that science is restricted to the truth about physical objects and events.

Socrates is highly significant because his belief that truth is knowledge implies that reality is fundamentally good. If evil is ultimately due to ignorance the Problem of Evil is an illusion because ignorance is inevitable. To claim that ignorance is not inevitable is a delightful example of ignorance! How could one possibly know everything?

Well, the question of whether science and philosophy are good is different from the question of whether the methods used by scientists and philosophers are good, I think. My thought is that the scientific method and Socratic method are neither good nor evil. It is the motives of the scientist or philosopher using those methods that might better be called good or evil. The anology to compare: A handgun is not good or evil. It is the motive of the criminal or police officer weilding the weapon that is good or evil.

Socrates said that those who misused his method were men who, “care nothing for the truth of the matter of discussion, but are eager only to convince their audience of their own point of view” (Cratylus). The difference between them and himself, he said, is that his primary goal is to convince himself!

I myself am not yet convinced that science and philosophy are intrinsicly good, since the methods scientists and philosophers employ are neither good nor evil. But are you saying that genuine scientists, like genuine philosophers truly seek truth, and so science and philosophy, insofar as they are persuits of truth, are indeed good?

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the question of whether science and philosophy are good is different from the question of whether the methods used by scientists and philosophers are good, I think. My thought is that the scientific method and Socratic method are neither good nor evil. It is the motives of the scientist or philosopher using those methods that might better be called good or evil. The analogy to compare: A handgun is not good or evil. It is the motive of the criminal or police officer wielding the weapon that is good or evil.

Socrates said that those who misused his method were men who, “care nothing for the truth of the matter of discussion, but are eager only to convince their audience of their own point of view” (Cratylus). The difference between them and himself, he said, is that his primary goal is to convince himself!

I myself am not yet convinced that science and philosophy are intrinsically good, since the methods scientists and philosophers employ are neither good nor evil. But are you saying that genuine scientists, like genuine philosophers truly seek truth, and so science and philosophy, insofar as they are pursuits of truth, are indeed good?

Yes. Without pursuing the truth we cannot develop as persons, i.e. rational beings. It was an atheist, Thomas Nagel, who pointed out that life is good because it is a source of opportunities. The same reasoning applies to our power of reason which increases our opportunities immensely - as demonstrated by human achievements which far surpass those of any other species.

“Man’s greatness consists in the power of thought”. - Pascal

 

[spockrates]

Yes. Without pursuing the truth we cannot develop as persons, i.e. rational beings. It was an atheist, Thomas Nagel, who pointed out that life is good because it is a source of opportunities. The same reasoning applies to our power of reason which increases our opportunities immensely - as demonstrated by human achievements which far surpass those of any other species.

“Man’s greatness consists in the power of thought”. - Pascal

Yes, and that raises a question: Someone in this discussion thread (not sure if it was you) suggested that Socrstes was opposed to science. And it makes me wonder: If true scientists–like true philosophers–seek truth, how could he or any lover of truth be opposed to science?