PHILO SOPHIA. . .PART VII

SOCRATES (470-399 B.C.), PART III
There had, of course, been philosophers before Socrates: strong men, subtle men, and seers. For the most part they had been physical philosophers; they had sought for the ‘physic’ (nature) of external things – the material and measureable world. Socrates affirmed them. He also offered that there was an infinitely worthier subject for philosophers than all of the trees, stones, water and dirt – even than all of the stars. Socrates said there is the mind of man. Then he asked: ‘What is man, and what can he become?’

So he went about inviting others to pry with him into the human soul, uncovering assumptions and questioning sureties. Men, it appeared to Socrates, talked too easily about ‘justice.’ ‘What is Justice?’ He asked. When you speak of Justice what do you mean by this abstract word; a word which you so easily use to settle the problems of life and death? What do you mean, he inquired, by honor, virtue, morality, and patriotism? Most importantly: What do you mean by ‘yourself’? Some who suffered (and it was, indeed, a form of suffering) from this ‘Socratic Method,’ this demand (and it was a demand, not simply an ‘invitation’) for accurate definitions, and clear thinking, and near perfect analysis, objected that he asked more than he answered, and that he left men’s minds more confused than before (anyone who has spent time with Socrates – via Plato’s writings – knows of what these folks speak).

YET, Socrates bequeathed to philosophy (and to seekers of wisdom) two definite answers to two of civilization’s vexing questions: ‘What is the meaning of Virtue?’ and ‘What is the best State?’ For the youths of Athens, no two topics could have been more vital than these. What would soon be played out in reality was that a disintegrating individualism (sound familiar?) had weakened the Athenian character, and left the city a prey at last to the sternly-nurtured Spartans. As for the State. . .for Socrates, what could have been more ridiculous than this mob-led, passion-ridden democracy, this government by a debating-society, this precipitate selection and dismissal and execution of generals, this unchoice choice of simple farmers and tradesmen, in alphabetical rotation as members of the supreme court of the land? Socrates asked, amidst all of this: ‘How could a new and natural morality be developed in Athens, and how could the State be saved from itself?

It was his reply to these questions that gave Socrates death and immortality. The older citizens would have honored Socrates had he called for a restoration of the ancient polytheistic faith; if he had led his youthful followers (and some not so youthful followers) to the temples and the sacred groves, and told them to sacrifice again to the gods of their fathers. But he felt that was a hopeless and suicidal path, a regression not a progression. Socrates had his own religious faith: he believed in one God, and hoped in his modest way that death would not destroy him. He also believed that a lasting moral code (note the word ‘lasting’) could not be rooted in an uncertain theology. If one could develop a deep rooted morality independent of religious doctrine, a morality as valid for the atheist as for the theist, then theologies could come and go and the deep tap roots that nurtured morality would not be depleted nor destroyed.

If ‘good’ meant ‘intelligent,’ and ‘virtue’ meant ‘wisdom’; if men could be taught to see clearly their real interests, to see afar the distant results of their deeds, to criticize and coordinate their desires out of a self-cancelling chaos into a purposive and creative harmony – this, perhaps, would provide for the educated and sophisticated man the morality which in the unlettered relies on reiterated precepts and external control [how often does modern man rely upon reiterated precepts and external control].