can certainly say that the religious dimension of Socrates thought very little of interest to philosophers today. This is due in large part because we live in a liberal secular society advocating religious tolerance. Although religion has been under state control at the time, the Athens of Socrates severely condemned the "crimes of impiety." About 430 BCE, following the decree of Diopeithès, anyone who does not believe in gods, or who taught the doctrines relating to celestial phenomena, were convicted of impiety. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, among others, the master and the protege of Pericles, Athens will be banned for saying that the sun is a hot stone. These intolerant attitudes, some would call today "backward" are far from us. For us, therefore, Socrates is the secular thinker who has heroically opposed to the dictates of the will of the majority, opinion the large number, doxa to defend, even in death, philosophical activity, the ultimate expression of "freedom of conscience" (= the "Know thyself"). Socrates represents the model of enlightened liberal citizen. If you teach Socrates, it is likely that either the model of secular and liberal citizen that you present to your students. There is nothing surprising about that, each time having had its own Socrates.
There was even a "holy Socrates" as Christians to the Renaissance Socrates will make a "proto-Christian", a sort of prophet of Christ before the letter, basically a bridge between paganism and Christianity. Anyway, for us, Socrates is an atheist, an agnostic at worst, that when he talks about his famous daimon , it is ironic on the part of this great master. Basically, for many of us, Socrates is guilty of the charges against him, for Socrates simply pretending to believe in the gods of the city, then he was proposing to replace the amount of eccentric deities to the city by , so that the cult of Reason. But if this is the Socrates you teach, you probably have a hard time explaining some key passages of the Apology where Socrates says very emphatically believe in the gods (eg 35d " But, gentlemen of the court, I requested any favor because, perhaps more strongly than any of my accusers, I believe that gods exist. To them I leave it to decide, through you, the best award for me as for you. )
Elsewhere, Socrates wants to clear himself of charges of atheism that the Athenians have assimilated wrongly to the sophists and the philosophers of nature ( Apology 18b-c) which, themselves, say they do not believe in gods, or ignore them. We can try to put it all on account of Socratic irony, but the price becomes expensive because then the irony becomes a form of dishonesty , therefore contrary to virtue . must recall in this connection that Socrates tells his judges that they must judge fairly and they will hear from him the truth (18a and 17b) so that, if indeed ironical Socrates systematically it would violate the legal process he considers just, doing so would, in short, perfectly incoherent. We must therefore take seriously the text of the A anthropology of Socrates.
This premise is accepted, we must admit that Socrates believed in the gods, at least at the "god of Delphi, Apollo, which would have given a" divine mission ". One might think that Socrates is both a "traditionalist" and a "reformer" in matters of religion. As religious "traditionalists", Socrates would agree with the following theses: (1) gods exist, (2) the gods are kind and care about the welfare of humans, (3) they communicate with us the means of oracles, dreams and other signs, (4) piety requires us to respond to their benevolence means of prayers, sacrifices, festivals, etc.. Furthermore, Socrates is a reformer in his philosophical practice (A) becomes an exercise in piety, (B) because, like any virtue, piety requires a philosophical examination, so that (C) No person shall be piles unless you know what piety. Socrates is how he managed - whether there is actually succeeded - to solve the apparent conflict is to accept both proposals (1) to (4) and (A) (C)? How, in other words, Socrates has succeeded in reconciling religion and its traditional approach "rationalist"? Prayers, sacrificial rites, etc.. Are necessary components of godliness, but they remain insufficient. For Socrates, therefore, the vast majority of Athenians do not fulfill their obligations to the gods even though they apparently conform to traditional religious practices. It was imperative, according to Socrates - who was the spokesman of "the god" - every Athenian conducts a critical review on virtue (piety is only part of virtue). Socrates, condemned for impiety by the judge, failed to convince them that his philosophical practice dictated that the pious and god was it did not conflict with the religion of the city.
Personally, if I was one of 500 (or 501) judges, I probably would have found Socrates guilty of impiety. In a stunning article, "The Impiety of Socrates (Ancient Philosophy , 17, 1997, p. 1-12), the British philosopher specialist in ancient philosophy, Myles Burnyeat, drew strong objections to anyone who would exonerate Socrates charges Meletus, Anytus Lycon and, in particular the requirement that Socrates does not believe in gods of the city. Some of the reasons, in the eyes of Burnyeat, the condemnation of Socrates for impiety.
Suppose then that we are conscious that Athenian citizens at heart Let's take as our role as citizens and, therefore, judge. We seek to determine whether Socrates has harmed the city as claimed by his accusers. First Burnyeat points out a fact seemingly innocuous after which Socrates never mentions namely he believes to Athena, Zeus, Apollo, etc.., The gods believed that the city of Athens. Certainly, "said Socrates," ... probably stronger than any of my accusers, I believe that the gods exist (35d), but he did not name explicitly and precisely who those gods to whom he feels more confident that any What Athenian. Certainly Meletus goes too far in saying that Socrates does not believe in any god (26b). But the question remains as to how (s) god (s) just go to the allegiance of Socrates. Certainly, Socrates says he believes sincerely in his daimon - nobody disputes the legitimacy, not even Meletus - Socrates believed in the existence of gods (27c). But this does not prove that he still believes precisely the gods of the Athenian city. Moreover, when it comes to the oracle at Delphi, Socrates never speaks namely Apollo, but the Pythia, or he speaks the phrase using the singular impersonal "god ( o theos). This suggests that perhaps Socrates inclinations, not to shirk the Athenian religion, but a form of monotheism. Moreover, it is clear that in his defense of obedience "to the god," Socrates advocates a new "religious practice" - that is to say philosophy as critical examination - very different from traditional religion constituted after all, for sacrificial rites. Once again on behalf of "the god", he even accused his countrymen and his city to be in a deplorable condition on moral (29c). Socrates did not realize that by criticizing the morality of the city, he criticizes the same time the gods of the city. It seems that the god of Socrates stroked a systematic project of "moral rehabilitation". The "divine mission" that Socrates receives the service "to the god," is to enhance the virtue of its citizens (30a). However, there is nothing similar in terms of moral rectitude among the Greek gods. Socrates' wife therefore a different deity than the Athenian gods. Then, if the traditional religion was turned into a "philosophical practice", it would disappear altogether. It seems impossible to reconcile religious practice new Socrates and traditional practice.
The accusers were right to accuse Socrates to introduce "new gods" in the city, and that Socrates indeed formed youth to this new religious practice and, thus, the "corrupted" . Moreover, when Socrates says that "... probably stronger than any of my accusers, I believe that the gods exist " what Socrates meant not so much that it is more pious than his accusers, but he thinks differently to something other than what it believed its own accusers.
Finally, Socrates does not show it with pride (hubris ) saying that only virtue leads to happiness: "By becoming virtuous that may arise prosperity for individuals, as for the city. (30b)? It is clear that Socrates is attacking the national deities, they are not able to enable citizens to become virtuous. In fact, Socrates did not need the gods. Only the effort in her eyes. The only role left to the "god" is to protect the fair and informed by "signs" that certain situations are detrimental. In reality, after all, the virtuous man fears nothing, even if it is put to death (29a, 30d). In addition, the city has to fear that some misfortune should it spill over onto it condemns Socrates-the-right. Socrates is a gift "from God." Do not receive it, would be disastrous for the city and its gods. Faced with this accumulation of overwhelming evidence, one has no difficulty imagining that the court judges have ordered the Héliée Socrates.
0 comments:
Post a Comment