Persons are Meaning-Seeking
Socrates was the first moral philosopher (c. 470 – 399 BC), and what that meant for him is that we must bring rational clarity to our actions by examining the motivations, assumptions, and beliefs that underlie them. He was not a writer. He engaged in dialogue with others for the purpose of examining the important questions in life. He believed that the unexamined life, a life without well-reasoned moral purpose, was not worth living. He saw no shame in discovering that one’s current beliefs or opinions could not hold up under rational scrutiny. But some found him annoying, especially those who wanted to pursue the path of least resistance or the course of self-interest, which was the norm then just as it is now.
It’s not my intention to delve too deeply into the philosophical practice of Socrates except as it pertains to one key feature of his practice, i.e., the use of definition. In dialogue, he would usually profess ignorance and ask questions, requiring his interlocutors to explain themselves and justify their opinions and truth claims. We know of this because Plato, his greatest student, shared these interactions in the form of published dialogues. At the outset, the person expressing an opinion in response to a question such as “what is it that makes action good, right or appropriate?” might feel very sure of themself. But soon, under questioning from Socrates, they struggled and became frustrated.
His purpose was not to humiliate them but to help them discover their own limitations and ignorance. For only at that point, when their unquestioned beliefs came into question, would it be possible for them to open their minds and become genuinely earnest and humble about the work of sorting out what they believe or don’t believe, what they know and don’t know, and what I need to understand better. If they could overcome their need to be the smartest guy in the room, they might at least become a smarter guy in the room. If we want to live a morally responsible and intelligent life and fulfill any of the vital roles we take in life, we must be willing to subject our opinions to critical examination.
Placed in a Political Context
Socrates pursued his mission in ancient Athens where the worlds first form of deliberative democracy had arisen in the 6th century BC. Those who wished to participate and assert leadership recognized the need to cultivate persuasive skills. Thus a new profession was born, the sophists. They specialized in rhetoric and promised aspiring political and civic leaders that they could teach them skills in public speaking to persuade, influence, and win support for their ideas. Truth was secondary. They were not motivated by ideal of truth and justice.
Sound like today’s K-Street lobbyist? Well, that’s essentially how Socrates viewed them, and he feared that their influence would lead to a more corrupt government. Unlike our representative democracy or republic, their version of democracy emphasized direct participation of citizens in making policy and implementing it, in ensuring the greater good for the polis of Athens. So, in his practice of applied moral philosophy, what he was trying to do was promote an approach to thinking, deliberating, and decision making that aimed higher.
There are obvious parallels between the issues Socrates faced over 2,700 years ago and those we face today in America and elsewhere in modern democratic societies. The self-interested agenda of special interests threaten the integrity of government. It jeopardizes ideals of justice, truth, and reasonableness. And Socrates died for his cause. He refused to go quiet or to leave Athens when faced with trumped up charges: The unexamined life was not worth living for him. He, like Jesus and Buddha, was a model of moral courage.
In Personal Development
Many of us may be okay relying on the “free-play” of self-interest for driving the market economy, but we may be less inclined to endorse these as the primary sources of guidance when it comes to issues of moral well-being and personal happiness. We recognize in these moments the need to “get real,” to examine the deeper truth of our situation and the moral meaning of life and what’s at stake. And this is where Socratic dialogue and psychotherapy intersect in their need to define the issues. To settle for less will usually leave us floundering from one failed effort to another without the insight and understanding necessary to get to the root of the problem.
