Does the MOQ support Socrates when he says, "A MAN WHO HAS LEARNED ABOUT
RIGHT WILL BE RIGHTEOUS"?
Bodvar, gald to see you back on the calm side.
I suspect "righteousness" has a biblical ring to it in all Western
languages. The bible and Christiandom have had a most profound influence
on our entire civilization. Fortunately, Socrates came before all that.
I thought it would be fruitful to find out what Socrates really meant by
the statement and did a little research. I learned that it is one of his
most famous dictums. Its one of his most frequently quoted and analyzed
ideas. But my sources have two versions of this idea and they're both
phrased slightly differently that our version. Both "NO ONE DOES WRONG
VOLUNTARILY" and "VIRTUE IS KNOWLEDGE" (or WISDOM) were the two
versions I found and the text claimed that they both express the same
idea. You probably know that Socrates never wrote anything himself and
there were many who later put words in his mouth. It appears, however
that the above statements were put in his mouth by many sources. And
fortunately, neither of them include the word "righteous".
I think its worth pointing out that "does wrong" is translated from a
word in the original Greek that actually meant "misses the mark". So
even though the alternative versions avoid the word "righteous", it
propably still carries a more moralistic tone than Socrates intended.
He's saying that no one does wrong willingly. When one thinks of the
claim, "No one misses the mark intentionally" it almost becomes a
truism. Or how about "No one makes a mistake on purpose."? It then seems
like mere common-sense.
Its also worth noteing that that same word has been translated in the
new testament as "sin".Sin actually meant "misses the mark" in the
original version, which was written in Greek. Repent meant "re-think
your views". Etc.
VIRTUE IS KNOWLEDGE. I tend to think Socrates really made this statement
because its so odd. Knowledge is virtue; now that's a different
statement altogether. That's easy to understand, even if one disagrees.
It wouldn't be too hard to make a case that education and understanding
can foster a moral character, but that's not what he said. VIRTUE IS
KNOWLEDGE. That's kind of wierd and interesting, don't you think? And I
think its safe to assume that the word "virtue" has also been translated
badly and had a less pious feel to it in the original. Maybe it was the
Victorians who ruined "virtue". Their "Virtue is its own reward" is
probably quite true, but they used it like a weapon and was code for "If
your behavior doesn't meet our expectations, we'll throw you out of
decent society".
In any case, I want to wrestle those terms away from the didactic
moralizers and conformity cops and give them back to moral philosophy. I
mean I would if I could. Turning these questions into "Thou shalts" does
a dis-service to Socrates and Pirsig, don't you think? Neither of them
are preachers in that sense.
If I understand what Socratres meant, it is supported by the MOQ. I
would even say that the MOQ articulates the principle in some detail.
Remember Pirsig saying that the ZUNI priest was evil in the eyes of the
war chiefs, and the war chief were evil in the eyes of the priest. And
in a way, they were both right. Both sides in the conflict believed they
were acting for good, and they were both right. But they were right for
diffferent reasons and good on different levels. Pirsig also points out
how even the Nazis' actions were good at a certain level. And of course
he gives us the levels and codes to sort out this kind of thing.
But that doesn't mean that it is all good, so nothing matters. Pirsig
can't rightly be interpeted as any kind of Nihilism. Far from it. It
doesn't relieve us of moral responsability or recuse us from the task of
making moral judgements about the values involved in life's conflicts.
We all understand that the MOQ has been designed precisely to ensure
that values and morality always remain at the center of our evaluations
and inquiries. The MOQ is a hammer built to smash amoral scientific
objectivity.
I think Pirsig and Socrates are both saying that even guys like Hitler
and Stalin didn't see themselves as evil. They didn't intentionally
choose to be wrong or immoral. They thought they were doing good. Maybe
its hard to imagine that such horrors could be perpetrated by a human
being, so Hollywood gives us Lex Luther and The Riddler or Hannibal
Lecter or some other insane creature who actually chooses evil. But it
just doesn't work like that in real life. People really don't do wrong
voluntarily, we do it out of ignorance. As they say in the East,
ignorance is the cause of all suffering. And no one can escape the
charge because we are finite beings. We are all ignorant, its just a
matter of degree. Of course, some folks get to act on their ignorance
with greater force than others.
The unexamined life is one not worth living. And its not likely to be
very moral.
David B.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:45 GMT