The first of five brief essays for my political philosophy class. A bit scattered, but that is the nature of the assignment. Enjoy!
Philosophy and political society have long had a tumultuous relationship. Nothing manifests the struggle that frequently persists between the two better than the story of Socrates’ execution in The Apology, for this is the story of political society killing philosophy. “Why,” you ask, “would the state want to kill philosophy?” The answer is laid before us in this quote from Socrates, when he says, “My excellent man, you’re an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible – and reputation and honor – but that about wisdom and truth, about how your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?”[1] The judgments that Socrates (and by extension, other philosophers) place upon the pursuit of various values frustrates many people not dedicated to the pursuit of something they (the philosophers) find valuable. In the excerpted quote, Socrates condemns those people in search of wealth, reputation, and honor, arguing that pursuit of wisdom and truth is more valuable, ergo better.
When I reflect on my valuation of the pursuit of wisdom and truth versus the pursuit of wealth, reputation and honor, I find that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Socrates. This is in large part due to the profound influence of Emerson on my thinking. In his 1837 lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard entitled “An American Scholar,” Emerson laid out a new paradigm for American scholarship. Previously, the American higher education system had simply taught the classics of European thinking, encouraging its students to become familiar with thinkers such as Rousseau, Locke, Descartes, and, coincidentally, Plato. Emerson encouraged the students to forge new ground, to disagree where appropriate, and to become “Man Thinking” with the explicit purpose of furthering the knowledge of mankind as a whole. In essence, Emerson argued that by gaining previously unknown knowledge, an individual scholar advances the human race for eternity.[2]
How then is this different from the pursuit of wealth? For one might argue that working to secure as much wealth as possible for oneself is beneficial to society. This is certainly the argument of capitalists. Yet there is a clear distinction between the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of knowledge or truth. That distinction lies in the ephemeral nature of wealth, and, likewise, reputation and honor. While knowledge and truth remain for the rest of human existence, wealth, reputation, and honor can all come and go with time – reference the current economic crisis and the changing historical attitudes towards a figure such as Christopher Columbus.
There is good evidence to suggest that this conflict between philosophy and political society continues even today. When we look at the debate over what to teach in schools – Darwinian evolution vs. creationism – we seem a similar debate at work. Granted, the religious aspect of the Darwinism – creationism debate is slightly different. But it is still clear there is a group of people who feels that those goals should include the teaching of religious dogma. Similarly, there is a group of people wishing to deny the validity of theories suggesting global warming is taking place. These people feel that a rejection of the obtained knowledge allows for political society to achieve its goals more efficiently. In both of these cases, the modern day truth-makers, namely scientists, are coming under attack from factions of political society suggesting that the scientists’ work impedes political society from accomplishing certain goals. We see then, that the conflict between political society and philosophy is still vibrant today.
[1] Plato The Apology, 29e.
[2] Ralph Waldo Emerson, An American Scholar.
No comments:
Post a Comment