How significant was Socrates?

[spockrates]

We may explore the merits of both approaches to defending our client, if you like. I’m just wondering which we should consider first: Socrates never said a wise man cannot sin, or Socrates said it, but it is true?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, we might begin our defense by making this our opening statement to the jury. But the prosecutor’s opening statement might very well be that the crime for which Socrates should be found guilty is spreading the lie that a wise man is perfectly sinless, and he is actually not charged with saying man is omniscient.

So should we stake our defense on the argument that Socrates never said this? Or should we admit he said this, but make the argument that it is no lie (and so not a crime) and show the jurors sinless perfectionism is in fact possible for one who is truly wise?

I think the first strategy is simpler. The question of sinless perfectionism raises all kinds of problems about human nature and divine intervention.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Personally, I’d rather not put Socrates on trial again. Hasn’t he been through enough already?

 

[spockrates]

Personally, I’d rather not put Socrates on trial again. Hasn’t he been through enough already?

I’d rather not put him on trial, either. But Aristotle, Nietzsche, Kierkagard and Aquinas have different ideas. Since they are prosecuting Socrates, I feel I must defend him. If you like, TonyRey and I might be able to pull some strings to get you a seat on the jury. You could then let us know how our argument affect your decision to aquit or not aquit our client.

 

[spockrates]

I think the first strategy is simpler. The question of sinless perfectionism raises all kinds of problems about human nature and divine intervention.

Plan A it is! Although we’ll hold plan B in reserve and use that card should the trial not go well. It might be helpful for the jury to see the prosecution’s prize witness Aquinas squirm. We might ask him his opinion of these words of our Redeemer:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

(Matthew 5:48)

And then question him further: “Isn’t it true, sir that Catholic Thomists, who are your disciples, believe that sinless perfection is indeed possible this side of heaven? Now where would they get such an idea, if not from you?”

 

[inocente]

The lesson, I’d say is that our personal sins don’t just have consequences for us. They extend through space and time effecting not only those dear to us, but also generations to come. I think you might agree, as hunting to extinction and wasting resources and generating massive amounts of pollution is likely to visit the results of our sins on our children and our children’s children and on generations to come.

Agreed.

Yet not one of the many thousands wandering the desert until an entire generation grew old and died resorted to canablism. Perhaps where God guides, he provides. In fact, they were told to leave the desert, but refused to do so, yet God still met their needs.

Yes, it seems cannibalism is a general taboo except (a) in some societies for ritual purposes (b) under extreme duress through lack of alternatives or (c) for some mad individuals.

inocente;11151454:

Is there a rational moral case for cannibalizing everything else while not cannibalizing ourselves?

The case is love.

Yes, love of lamps led to a lot of sperm whales being killed for their oil, love of pianos led to the demise of a lot of ivory producing animals, etc.

Are you saying my son does not need to study and prepare for any exam? All he needs to do is keep calm and carry on in his ignorance of the subject matter?

No, I said you son missed an excellent lesson because it was on the subject of keep calm and carry on. Why else would his friend have texted that? And, learning of that strategy, your son might then calmly ask himself what does keeping calm mean, is he generally a calm person (what does his family think), what’s the alternative case for instead giving up or panicking, etc.

*What you smell is Right Guard, which I use to mask my stench; it’s hard to notice my facial features when I take off my cap and one gets a load of my receding hairline; and my wife and sons would likely not use the adjective good–or even common–to describe my sense! But I appreciate the attempt at giving me a compliment.

*

But they love you anyway.

Dogs are especially good at ignoring our faults, their minds must be set on higher things.

Everlasting benefit is to live forever in the presence of the One who benefits us. Everlasting detriment is to exist forever apart from the benefit of such a presence. I can think of no better goal that is achieved now, but experienced after death. But perhaps you have something better in mind?

No that will do fine, Paul and Psalm 133 are at one. But while people may agree that “our end is to love one another in ways that have everlasting benefit for us”, people dispute not just the means by which that is achieved but also what that end means in practice.

It would seem then that we may sin even when trying hard not to, since we cannot be certain of our knowledge. Would that be the kind of ignorance Socrates was on about?

 

[spockrates]

So then, TonyRey on with plan A. The prosecution will likely put the expert witness Aquinas on the witness stand who will give testimony, as previously stated, that our client Socrates believed it impossible for a wise man to sin. When the prosecutor asks him to explain why our client’s opinion opinion is wrong, the witness will likely say Socrates believed every virtue to be an intellectual one, and he will go on to explain:

Accordingly for a man to do a good deed, it is requisite not only that his reason be well disposed by means of a habit of intellectual virtue; but also that his appetite be well disposed by means of a habit of moral virtue. And so moral differs from intellectual virtue, even as the appetite differs from the reason. Hence just as the appetite is the principle of human acts, in so far as it partakes of reason, so are moral habits to be considered virtues in so far as they are in conformity with reason.

(Summa Theologica)

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

So my friend, I think our best strategy, then will be to convince the jury that Aquinas was mistaken. We must show them that contrary to what Aquinas believes, Socrates actually did believe there are two kinds of virtue, not one. We must prove he believes intellectual virtue–or virtue of cognition–is distinct from moral virtue–or virtue of volition.

Do you agree with this defense strategy?

 

[spockrates]

Agreed.

Please agree only if the historical context I suggest is correct. If it is, then your agreement appears justified. For given the suggested historical context, we may infer that the word punish means to allow the consequences of the ancient people’s actions to run their course–having dire results for their children and grandchildr
en.

Yes, it seems cannibalism is a general taboo except (a) in some societies for ritual purposes (b) under extreme duress through lack of alternatives or (c) for some mad individuals.

True, and I’d add that case (a) does not seem to apply to thd Christian, and in case (b) the Christian may choose to abstain from eating–even if such abstinence results in starvation, dehydration and physical death. The question, I suppose is whether the Christian *should *abstain to the point of death. If she should not, then why would she even confess such an act and ask God for forgiveness? Do we even have one real example of case (b) where a Christian who did not abstain felt no guilt and found no intellectual reason to seek such forgiveness?

Yes, love of lamps led to a lot of sperm whales being killed for their oil, love of pianos led to the demise of a lot of ivory producing animals, etc.

I agree. It would seem, then that the object of one’s love has a good deal to do with how one expresses that love.

No, I said you son missed an excellent lesson because it was on the subject of keep calm and carry on. Why else would his friend have texted that? And, learning of that strategy, your son might then calmly ask himself what does keeping calm mean, is he generally a calm person (what does his family think), what’s the alternative case for instead giving up or panicking, etc.

Yes, I can see that. I think it would be easier to get along with my son if he had more self-control and did not tend to lose his temper. But isn’t the moral maxim * keep calm and carry on* too ambiguous to help one know for certain what moral decisions she must make in each situation? I mean, what if one were to ask, “How should I carry on?” What should our answer be to her question?

But they love you anyway.

Dogs are especially good at ignoring our faults, their minds must be set on higher things.

Having three dogs of my own, perhaps I should admit you are right!

No that will do fine, Paul and Psalm 133 are at one. But while people may agree that “our end is to love one another in ways that have everlasting benefit for us”, people dispute not just the means by which that is achieved but also what that end means in practice.

It would seem then that we may sin even when trying hard not to, since we cannot be certain of our knowledge. Would that be the kind of ignorance Socrates was on about?

Yes, it certainly seems to be the inference drawn from his words:

Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous — he is perfect righteousness ; and he of us who is the most righteous is most like him.

(Theatetus)

If Socrates believed his God alone was perfectly wise and righteous, then it would be reasonable to say that you and I are not perfectly so, and so we are always somewhat in the dark as to what the right thing is to do in each and every situation.

I guess, then we should next wonder this: Is there one thing that is most right to do in every situation, and if there is, does God always know what it is?

 

[inocente]

Please agree only if the historical context I suggest is correct. If it is, then your agreement appears justified. For given the suggested historical context, we may infer that the word punish means to allow the consequences of the ancient people’s actions to run their course–having dire results for their children and grandchildren.

Not sure the context matters as much as the underlying message that Israel is the inheritance planned by God, and those who disobey Him won’t get that to see that inheritance. It’s a fact of life that the way we leave the world will affect future generations until they see the errors of our way.

We can look back with hindsight and think we would be more wise, but whether we would do any better I’m not so sure. All utopias look like nightmares to others, perhaps all we can do is our best, as an old song has it:

*Teach your children well,
Their father’s hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you’ll know by.
Don’t you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can’t know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Teach your parents well,
Their children’s hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
etc.

• Graham Nash*

*True, and I’d add that case (a) does not seem to apply to thd Christian, and in case (b) the Christian may choose to abstain from eating–even if such abstinence results in starvation, dehydration and physical death. The question, I suppose is whether the Christian *should **abstain to the point of death. If she should not, then why would she even confess such an act and ask God for forgiveness? Do we even have one real example of case (b) where a Christian who did not abstain felt no guilt and found no intellectual reason to seek such forgiveness?

I don’t know, I’m no expert. But hypothetically, as long as it didn’t involve murder, such as where someone has died accidentally, then they’ve departed and like Paul I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. In that situation we could argue that to not take the (God given?) opportunity to stay alive is to commit suicide. But it would be a very hard thing to do, a last resort.

Yes, I can see that. I think it would be easier to get along with my son if he had more self-control and did not tend to lose his temper. But isn’t the moral maxim * keep calm and carry on* too ambiguous to help one know for certain what moral decisions she must make in each situation? I mean, what if one were to ask, “How should I carry on?” What should our answer be to her question?

That people look like their pets . I mean we become the objects of our affections, since the more we dwell on something the more it influences us, we cannot be things we never muse on, and we cannot be anything if we just flit about. So by carrying on being calm she practices the art of tranquility and being clear headed, and so becomes them.

Having three dogs of my own, perhaps I should admit you are right!

Me too, although I think they believe all mammals are dogs.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog

*Yes, it certainly seems to be the inference drawn from his words:

Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous — he is perfect righteousness ; and he of us who is the most righteous is most like him.

(Theatetus)

If Socrates believed his God alone was perfectly wise and righteous, then it would be reasonable to say that you and I are not perfectly so, and so we are always somewhat in the dark as to what the right thing is to do in each and every situation.

I guess, then we should next wonder this: Is there one thing that is most right to do in every situation, and if there is, does God always know what it is?*

The one thing that is most right to do in every situation is obviously … … keep calm and carry on . I think God doesn’t judge books by their covers, he takes it case by case, Jesus asks himself what would Jesus do in our situation, looks at our hearts. I get called a moral relativist for this, but:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

 

[spockrates]

Not sure the context matters as much as the underlying message that Israel is the inheritance planned by God, and those who disobey Him won’t get that to see that inheritance. It’s a fact of life that the way we leave the world will affect future generations until they see the errors of our way.

We can look back with hindsight and think we would be more wise, but whether we would do any better I’m not so sure. All utopias look like nightmares to others, perhaps all we can do is our best, as an old song has it:

*Teach your children well,
Their father’s hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you’ll know by.
Don’t you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can’t know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Teach your parents well,
Their children’s hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
etc.

• Graham Nash*

I don’t know, I’m no expert. But hypothetically, as long as it didn’t involve murder, such as where someone has died accidentally, then they’ve departed and like Paul I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. In that situation we could argue that to not take the (God given?) opportunity to stay alive is to commit suicide. But it would be a very hard thing to do, a last resort.

That people look like their pets . I mean we become the objects of our affections, since the more we dwell on something the more it influences us, we cannot be things we never muse on, and we cannot be anything if we just flit about. So by carrying on being calm she practices the art of tranquility and being clear headed, and so becomes them.

Me too, although I think they believe all mammals are dogs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog

The one thing that is most right to do in every situation is obviously … … keep calm and carry on . I think God doesn’t judge books by their covers, he takes it case by case, Jesus asks himself what would Jesus do in our situation, looks at our hearts. I get called a moral relativist for this, but:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd....80x480/735020_562613590433942_382440579_n.jpg

Not sure I understand. Keep calm and carry on means to become like a dog? It seems to me dogs are by nature the opposite of calm. Barking, chasing, biting, fighting, killing is what they do when wild, free from control and unsubdued. Paul’s statement reminds me if such a pack of wild dogs:

14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

(Galatians 5)

There is a reason why the Hopi adopted the name Crazy Dogs to refer to their soldiers who were noted for extreme bravery and recklessness–and recklessness seems to me to be the opposite of staying calm.

But are you instead saying she should both be cool as a cucumber and crazy as a dog?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spockrates

I wonder if you have read Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft. In the chapter titled “Candy Confessions” the subject of knowledge of good versus volition of evil is treated. You might enjoy his approach.

 

[spockrates]

spockrates

I wonder if you have read Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft. In the chapter titled “Candy Confessions” the subject of knowledge of good versus volition of evil is treated. You might enjoy his approach.

Thanks Charlemagne. Is his approach based on the premise that Socrates did not believe volition of evil was possible if one had knowledge of good?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spockrates

**Thanks Charlemagne. Is his approach based on the premise that Socrates did not believe volition of evil was possible if one had knowledge of good? **

Yes. Ever so gradually in the course of this chapter and throughout the book, Socrates encounters disciples of Christ, but never Jesus himself in person. Through these encounters he is led to believe that maybe he is wrong about his doctrine that once we know the good we can not do the bad. This awakening comes to him gradually by the doctrine of sin and the understanding that sin is the violation of the good which we know to be good.

 

[inocente]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd....80x480/735020_562613590433942_382440579_n.jpg

Not sure I understand. Keep calm and carry on means to become like a dog? It seems to me dogs are by nature the opposite of calm. Barking, chasing, biting, fighting, killing is what they do when wild, free from control and unsubdued. Paul’s statement reminds me if such a pack of wild dogs:

14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

(Galatians 5)

There is a reason why the Hopi adopted the name Crazy Dogs to refer to their soldiers who were noted for extreme bravery and recklessness–and recklessness seems to me to be the opposite of staying calm.

But are you instead saying she should both be cool as a cucumber and crazy as a dog?

 

[spockrates]

spockrates

**Thanks Charlemagne. Is his approach based on the premise that Socrates did not believe volition of evil was possible if one had knowledge of good? **

Yes. Ever so gradually in the course of this chapter and throughout the book, Socrates encounters disciples of Christ, but never Jesus himself in person. Through these encounters he is led to believe that maybe he is wrong about his doctrine that once we know the good we can not do the bad. This awakening comes to him gradually by the doctrine of sin and the understanding that sin is the violation of the good which we know to be good.

Thanks for the synopsis. Does the book give the reason why Socrates held this belief, or is the idea that this was his opinion assumed to be true?

 

[spockrates]

Sorry for confusing you. Please let my try to rephrase the question so that it is a little clearer than mud. I’m wondering what the words carry on mean in the moral maxim keep calm and carry on.

Perhaps there is a cultural understanding Spaniards have that I do not? Reminds me of the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarves my sons watched when they were young. Snow White has a chance encounter with the dwarves and says, “How do you do?” After an awkward moment of puzzled looks and silence, one of the dwarves asks, “How do you do what?” I fear that my question, “How does one carry on?” might be showing my cultural ignorance, as well. For you answered, with a grin that one carries on by being like a dog. Perhaps you were not being serious and assumed my question was not intended to be taken seriously?

Some guesses as to what *carry on *means:

1. Continue remaining calm
2. Continue fighting to survive
3. Continue doing what you believe is right

However, if you were not making a joke, then perhaps my response was unclear for another reason. I was trying to find out why you believe keeping calm is a trait dogs have. For keeping calm is a kind of self-control, and their natural inclination seems to be to lose control. That’s part of the charm of dogs, isn’t it? The canine species has two natures at war within it–one that longs to be wild as a wolf, and one that desires to submit to its leader of the pack, which is the dog owner.

 

[spockrates]

http://images.betterphoto.com/0027/0607060742544book2_is_my_dog_a_wolf.jpg

I suppose the war within is something we share with them, and so our affection for them might, in part be based on this condition we have in common.

 

[spockrates]

Thanks for the synopsis. Does the book give the reason why Socrates held this belief, or is the idea that this was his opinion assumed to be true?

Charlemagne:

I meant to ask if the author gives the reason why he believes Socrates held this opinion.

 

[inocente]

Sorry for confusing you. Please let my try to rephrase the question so that it is a little clearer than mud. I’m wondering what the words carry on mean in the moral maxim keep calm and carry on.

Perhaps there is a cultural understanding Spaniards have that I do not? Reminds me of the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarves my sons watched when they were young. Snow White has a chance encounter with the dwarves and says, “How do you do?” After an awkward moment of puzzled looks and silence, one of the dwarves asks, “How do you do what?” I fear that my question, “How does one carry on?” might be showing my cultural ignorance, as well. For you answered, with a grin that one carries on by being like a dog. Perhaps you were not being serious and assumed my question was not intended to be taken seriously?

Some guesses as to what *carry on *means:

1. Continue remaining calm
2. Continue fighting to survive
3. Continue doing what you believe is right

However, if you were not making a joke, then perhaps my response was unclear for another reason. I was trying to find out why you believe keeping calm is a trait dogs have. For keeping calm is a kind of self-control, and their natural inclination seems to be to lose control. That’s part of the charm of dogs, isn’t it? The canine species has two natures at war within it–one that longs to be wild as a wolf, and one that desires to submit to its leader of the pack, which is the dog owner.

Help me, Mr Spock. There is a tear in the space-time continuum, some kind of wormhole perhaps.

I remember posting to you. Yesterday, I think it was yesterday.

I responded to your point about our personal sins don’t just have consequences for us. I remember rambling on about our inheritance and how we might not have done any better than our ancestors did obeying God.

This obviously got lost in space and never made it to your side of the wormhole.

Then I answered your question about cannibalism, not a very good answer, but that also got lost.

Then I remember answering your question about how should we carry on. Oh, and what is most right to do in every situation, I tried to answer that too.

But those too disappeared, lost without trace.

It seems the only thing to make it to your side of the rupture was either me testifying, apropos of nothing, that I too have three dogs, or a cartoon I like concerning how the internet hides our identity, which features two dogs.

The only thing to complete the journey from you to me is the above post (I’d say all your guesses are good to go btw) and a disturbing but lovable quadruped that is half dog, half wolf, currently running excitedly in circles due to its asymmetrical legs.

Oh, and a bowl of petunias just sprang into existence far above my house, only having time to exclaim “oh no, not again” before crashing to the ground.

Please ask Scotty to beam me up.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock
**
I meant to ask if the author gives the reason why he believes Socrates held this opinion.**

Without having to read the book again, I can’t say with certainty. I do believe he makes the point somewhere that Socrates learns that Jesus, not he, is the wisest of men. That, I suppose, is why knowledge of the good does not guarantee doing the good. We are frail sinners who need grace from on high to resist sin and turn our will into “Thy will be done.”