« The Heresy Quiz |
Main
| Is heavy thinking ruining your life? »
Socrates, Sophism, and secular democracy
Elusive, mysterious, and almost dubiously brilliant as portrayed in Plato's dialogues, Socrates (470-399 B.C.) lived during the classical age of Athenian democracy. He was thought to hold unconventional ideas about the traditional Greek gods - an especially dangerous move in light of the unfavorable events of the Peloponnesian War, which suspiciously came at a time when the gods were increasingly neglected or defamed - and this made him, standing out in the heavily communalistic Athens, a prime candidate for one of Aristophanes' pointed comedies. In The Clouds, "Socrates" is the head of a sort of gnostic (note the lowercase 'g') institution where he has done away with the gods and replaced them with natural phenomena (e.g. clouds). In reality, he denied being any kind of natural philosopher, and his "services" were free and open to the public, but his dexterous dialectic method tended to reveal mere pretense of knowledge in those who were thought the wisest, thus making it an "ask at your own risk" venture for interested philosophizers. Eventually the risk became much higher for Socrates himself.
The victors over Athens in the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans, had a strictly oligarchic government; ideologically, this also set the two cities at odds. Spartans thought (read: did family planning) in terms of definite, inborn characteristics and abilities that were to be developed according to the way the individual could best be employed for the good of the state. Athenians prided themselves on their good faith in the natural ability of any man to run a government - they counted all male citizens qualified for public office. But Socrates was thought to have oligarchic sympathies - strike two against him.
Now, since I'm no good at history lessons, let's get to the meat of this. The Sophists were traveling non-Athenian intellectuals who boasted in their rhetorical abilities and graciously condescended to educate any willing buffoon who could satisfy them financially. They liked to do their business in Attica most of all because Athens (home to the agora, the marketplace for fish, fruit, and...philosophy), was a place where it was perhaps normal to sit a child on your lap, look into his eyes, and say, "When you grow up, you can be whatever you want, dear." This isn't lying, of course - it is charitable, democratic parenting in action!
The Sophists were all about this idea of unconditional, boundless opportunity (again, the exception being the condition that you pay a pretty penny to learn their secrets). Socrates was not one of them - remember, he was in poverty for his devotion to the "torpedo touch" method of "teaching" - but as an Athenian, he was subject to the judgment of the polis, while the vagrant Sophists could freely go about doing what they did best: laying out all sides of an argument, all in the best light possible, but stopping short of judgment. It was not their job to determine right from wrong.
It is noteworthy that in Socrates' trial in 399, the charge brought by three obscure accusers was that he refused to recognize the polis' gods, thereby corrupting the youth with his impiety. The Athenian court did not operate under the rules of evidence and proof like modern courts, so any difficulty in securing prosecution for these charges was nonexistent. The underpaid jury was made up of hoi polloi, and the presiding magistrate (not judge) was, as the vast majority of Athenian politicians, chosen by lottery. Socrates' apology (defense), as recorded by Plato, was a sound dialectic refutation of all three charges, but the philosopher was in effect condemned to death by the jury's ignorance.
Are the similarities apparent? Is there any wonder why the Sophists patronized the Athenians? It seems to me that secular democracy, grounded in the view of free will that ostensibly "liberates" men to choose from an infinite number of possibilities, independently of external influence and without a view toward an inherent moral value in choices, is sophistic democracy. Where is the Plato who will unravel its rhetoric and reveal it as the doomed failure that it is?
What do you think would be the main Platonic critiques of modern secular/liberal democracy?
Well, I've hardly read any Plato at all, but I suppose he would shatter secular democracy's pluralistic notion of a supreme good, and he would think us ridiculous for wanting to believe that community can be based on a pragmatic theory of truth. I'd like to turn the question back to you, though, seeing as you've spent probably a wee bit more time in Plato than I have. ;)
I am currently enrolled in a Classical reading program and have spent some time in Plato. I'll take a stab at John's question. Given Socrates' (Plato writes as Socrates) search for the good, the true, and the beautiful, and the virtuous city, it seems that his main critique would be the divorce of virtue from civic life. Of course, he understood that philosophy was the manner by which one became virtuous, but also believed strongly that only certain individuals were capable of philosophy. And those that had come "out of the cave" were extremely reluctant to go back in to proselytize the uncritical masses.
I think it safe to say that Plato would see contemporary America and laugh at the way our society functions. Democracy was thought to be the worst of all governments (much of the classical tradition thought this way) because of how easily it devolved into tyranny and its relativistic tendency. Look at our founder's writings on democracy, particularly Madison's. They were all well versed in the classics. But i digrees.
Plato understood the need for the gods -- the classic quarrel was between the poet and the philospher. Hesiod, the poet, creates the gods, and the people believe and it holds their morals in check to some extent. Plato (Socrates) comes along and though not believing in the gods of the regime, knows that for any sort of order, they need to be perpetuated. This was a manin reason why he was put to death -- he was thought to be corrupting the youth of the city with bad morals (see Plato's Apology). But he believed in an ultimate truth by which all things live and move and have their being. Unfortunately, it was always outside of his grasp.
In the Republic (which book now escapes me), he even paints a picture of the truly virtuous man as one who would be spit on, and crucified. Amazing.
A bit rambling, but I hope informative nontheless.
Anthony - I wouldn't have thought of the divorce of virtue and civic life off hand, but that's definitely right. I think it's great that the leader of Plato's society was the philosopher-king. Ironically, his wish has been granted, just indirectly; philosophers control the public opinion of people decades (even centuries) after them, and public opinion controls public policy. So I guess the philosophers are indeed the kings. But as for their virtue...
Laura - It's been a few years since I read The Republic, though I never spent much time contemplating Plato's political philosophy in the first place. That's part of the reason I asked the question. I think Plato would be thoroughly disgusted by our individualism; for us, the state exists in order to ensure that the individual can have and live his own philosophy, but for Plato, the philosophers were the kings!
This is great writing. I can't wait to see what you write when one day you "get published."
I enjoyed this. Funny, I've been thinking about writing a post on the drawbacks of democracy. I'm tired of hearing certain people pontificate about the greatness and glory of democracy, as though it is sufficient to have democracy without God.
Our founding fathers never intended to give us a democracy--and knew that a secular society could not sustain and maintain freedom. Without the moral restraints and virtue of a God fearing society, external control through restrictive, repressive government or anarchy are inevitable.
Debra said: "Our founding fathers never intended to give us a democracy--and knew that a secular society could not sustain and maintain freedom. Without the moral restraints and virtue of a God fearing society, external control through restrictive, repressive government or anarchy are inevitable."
I quite disagree. Or rather, the Founders would have quite disagreed. Or rather, some of them would have. They did plenty of disagreeing amongst themselves!
Hamilton and the other members of the Federalist Party were the most apprehensive about democracy, and the most likely to conclude that the "rabble" needed a public religion -- even though most of the intellectual elite of the early republic, including the Federalists, were extremely dubious about Christianity.
Jefferson, on the other hand, thought that a small (and secular) federal government protecting a continent of self-governing "farmer's republics" was the best way to go. Instead of keeping the public in line by means of an antique faith and clerical superstitions, Jefferson thought that virtue would bloom as the people guided their morality on the basis of a free and rational process of inquiry. The vision was a land of yeoman farmers, reading Plato at the plow and Lucretius in the laundry.
Jefferson gave this advice to his own nephew:
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."
the Founders would have quite disagreed. Or rather, some of them would have. They did plenty of disagreeing amongst themselves!
Very true, Will. I should have said many of the founding fathers did not want to create a democracy--and they didn't in the beginning...at least not a democracy in the purest sense and not like we have today. And I'm sure it's true that not all of the founding fathers were Christians, although I think your statement "most of the intellectual elite of the early republic, including the Federalists, were extremely dubious about Christianity" is overstating it. I guess it depends on what you define as 'intellectual elite'. If that means those who questioned religion's importance in society or saw reason and religion in conflict, or were dubious about Christianity, then obviously, by definition the statment would be true. But, whether you consider them the intellectual elite or not, most of the founding fathers were Christians and many were men of deep religious conviction and faith who did not consider religion merely a tool for controlling the masses--but the necessary underpinning for the maintenance of freedom and self government.
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity." John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813
There are many quotes like this from various founding fathers recognizing the contribution and importance of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, to creating and maintaining a free government.
To be sure, I didn't intend to use the phrase "intellectual elite" in a tautological sense only to refer to deists and atheists. I meant simply that the majority of educated Americans in the late eighteenth-century were skeptical of Christian dogmas, and interested in rationally critiquing religion in a way that our current postmodern intelligentsia is not. That's not to say there were no prominent Christians in the early republic, or that many of those skeptics would still have considered themselves to be Christians. However, some of the most eminent public Christians (such as Joseph Priestley) were Unitarians or Socinians, whom many 21st-century Christians would not consider to be among their co-religionists. I think that Enlightnement-era Christians took a broader view.
The "general Principles" of Christianity that Adams referred to were definitely not specifically Christian doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, or the Trinity (all of which Adams scoffed at). Rather, Adams was a keen believer in the ethical preachings of Jesus, and he himself was a Unitarian who was willing to consider members of all faiths who imitated the virtues of Jesus to be Christians. In the same letter that you quote, Adams recalls the composition of the young American patriots who struggled against Britiain in 1776 and 1812:
"Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and 'Protestans qui ne croyent rien.' Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty."
I think you'll agree that any "general Principles" of Christianity which can be affirmed by "Deists and Atheists" as well must be very general principles indeed.
Have you read Plato's Apology? It's interesting how, throughout Plato's whole corpus, Socrates is made the new Homer, the new Hercules, et cetera, et cetera, and ends up being a Christ figure.
Interestingly, in "The Closing of the American Mind," by Allan Bloom (the most prominent Platonic Republican of recent years), Christ is realized to be a Socrates figure.
There's some chronological virtue to that.
Will, I don't know how many of these men were Christians in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. belief in the divinity of Christ, salvation through grace, atonement, resurrection, the Trinity, etc....) I am sure you are correct that there was a variety of belief and that some of the founding fathers ascribed to Judeo/Christian values and morals without holding to the basic tenets of Christianity (even while calling themselves Christian.) But this I do know: they shared in common the belief in Natural Law (even if they differed on some of the specifics of what that Law directed). It seems to me that, today, the idea that right and wrong is based on Natural Law has been laregely replaced with the idea that right and wrong is determined by things like popular opinion, personal desires, judicial authority and precedent, or the biggest guns. Which gets us back to Laura's originally observation: ... secular democracy, grounded in the view of free will that ostensibly "liberates" men to choose from an infinite number of possibilities, independently of external influence and without a view toward an inherent moral value in choices, is sophistic democracy.
Debra, I absolutely agree with you about the founders and their veneration for the Natural Law, whatever that might be. In fact, the reason so many of them were so critical of Christianity is that they believed it conflicted with the transcendent moral law which is attainable by reason. Of course, there were several eighteenth-century philosophers who experimented with new bases for ethics, such as Benthamite utilitarianism and Humean sentimentalism. But I don't know how deeply these ideas impressed the founders. Perhaps the most influential ethical philosopher was Adam Smith, who realized that private vices could be channeled into public virtues by the invisible hand of the market, without necessarily the need for a universal agreement on values. Smith's insight did have a large impact on the way the founders shaped the constitution. But I'll agree that they were a mostly deontological lot.
Thanks to Laura, Will & the rest for very informative, interesting and thought provoking posts and comments!
