(on the norm) The book explained that the Greeks had believed in many gods, gods of love, hunting and war, gods with power over the harvest, fire and sea. Before embarking on any venture they had prayed to them either in a temple or in a small shrine at home, and sacrificed animals in their honour. It had been expensive. Athena cost a cow; Artemis and Aphrodite a goat; Asclepius a hen or a cock.
The Greeks felt sanguine about owning slaves. In the fifth century BC, in Athens alone, there were, at any one time, 80-100,000 slaves, one slave to every three of the population.
The Greeks had been highly militaristic, too, worshipping courage on the battlefield. To be considered an adequate male, one had to know how to scythe the heads off adversaries…
Women had been entirely under the thumb of their husbands and fathers. They had no part in politics or public life, and had been unable to inherit property or to own money. They had normally married at thirteen, their husbands chosen for them but their respective fathers irrespective of emotional compatibility.
None of which would have seemed remarkable to the contemporaries of Socrates. They would have been confounded and angered to be asked why exactly they sacrificed cocks to Asclepius or why men needed to kill to be virtuous. It would have appeared as obtuse as wondering why spring followed winter or why ice was cold.
But it is not only the hostility of others that may prevent us from questioning the status quo. Our will to doubt can be just as powerfully sapped by an internal sense that societal conventions must have a sound basis, even if we are not exactly sure what this may be, because they have been adhered to by a great many people for a long time. It seems implausible that our society could be gravely mistaken in its beliefs and at the same time that we would be alone in noticing the fact. We stifle our doubts and follow the flock because we cannot conceive of ourselves as pioneers of hitherto unknown, difficult truths.
…his (Socrates) most curious feature was a habit of approaching Athenians of every class, age and occupation and bluntly asking them, without wondering whether they would think him eccentric or infuriating, to explain with precision why they held certain common sense beliefs… The sandal-less philosopher raised a plethora of questions to determine whether what was popular happened to make any sense.
The Socratic Method for Thinking
1. Locate a statement confidently described as common sense.
Acting courageously involved not retreating in battle.
Being virtuous requires money.
2. Imagine, for a moment that, despite the confidence of the person proposing it, the statement is false. Search for situations or contexts where the statement would not be true.
Could one ever be courageous and yet retreat in battle?
Could one ever stay firm in battle and yet not be courageous?
Could one ever have money and not be virtuous?
Could one ever have no money and be virtuous?
3. If an exception is found, the definition must be false or at least imprecise.
It is possible to be courageous and retreat.
It is possible to stay in battle and yet not be courageous.
It is possible to have money and yet be a crook.
It is possible to be poor and virtuous.
4. The initial statement must be nuanced to take the exception in to account.
Acting courageously can involve both retreat and advance in battle.
People who have no money can be described as virtuous only if they have acquired it in a virtuous way, and some people with no money can be virtuous when they have lived through situations where it was impossible to be virtuous and make money.
5. If one subsequently finds exceptions to the improved statements, the process should be repeated. The truth, in so far as a human being is able to attain such a thing, lies in statement which it seems impossible to disprove. It is by finding out what something is not that one comes closest to understanding what it is.
6. The product of thought is … superior to the product of intuition.
“Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honour, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?”
…the crux of Epicurus’s argument is that if we have money without friends, freedom and an analysed life, we will never truly be happy. And if we have them, but are missing the fortune, we will never be unhappy.
No comments:
Post a Comment