In which our hero no doubt will butcher many great thoughts by many thinkers far his superiors as well as his own half baked contemplations......
I realize I have been about as regular about blogging as the Cubs have been about winning baseball games, I seldom have ideas that form themselves completely enough to put into words, and even less often do I have time to commend them to type.
Nonetheless, as I sit here, likely trapped by a cataclysmic *cough*typicalmidwest*cough* snowstorm, I find myself with necessary homework defeated and time before bed. I heard tell there was a ball game on tonight but I am not a Pathawks fan. Therefore I will strive with the dual demons of procrastination and consternation to blog, hopefully for your reading pleasure.
I have just finished reading the "Republic" by Plato. I must confess to knowing much of the content before hand, having had many a prolonged and Whimmish conversation on the material. The reading itself brought me a much stronger appreciation for the essence of the text. As well, I have been aided in the reading with the guidance of a wizened teacher who is quite adamant that he is no professor of philosophy, such a thing being, frankly, impossible.
In Plato's other writings, Socrates insists that the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing. This is a powerful statement, and defines the Socratic method of philosophy. One cannot have thesis, or antithesis, only hypothesis. Everything is a shadow of greater things. The cave, often misinterpreted in modern education as an allegory about perceptions, is all about knowledge. The life of the philosopher is to be the discovery of shapes each more startling than the last, and light sources each more striking and blinding. But at the end of the allegory, Socrates points out that the Sun, the ultimate source of light for humanity, is still not the root source of light.
The light, which is both itself and a symbol of truth or goodness, has some other source, and philosophy then is to delve and contemplate the attributes of this source. Socrates, however, has bad news for all of us knowledge seekers: there is no finding this source. Knowledge of anything, is immortal, and like our understanding of dimensions, nothing mortal can grasp that which is immortal.
Socrates does have more to say about knowledge, however. Socrates knows the things of the flesh. He knows of erotic things, desires, hungers, fears. These things he knows. Men are intimately acquainted with the knowledge of the flesh.
It is for this reason then that he establishes all of his regimes under precepts which restrain the flesh, all of which, he says, are doomed to failure and can never succeed. He describes a healthy city, full of just men who mind their own labors and don't meddle in the labors of others, and immediately the young man say it is a boring city, without relish or comfort. They want lavishness, luxuries, and extravagances. They want the feverish city, doomed to self slavery, oligarchy, democratic license, and finally tyranny. No amount of Music, Gymnastic, Culture, or Mathematics can prevent this slow death of the city by humanity. Socrates could not give the young men a logical reason for why they should be just. He finishes his narrative with a myth about Hades, in which Odysseus says he would rather live the life of a quiet just man. Socrates doesn't have their answer, there is no answer to their question.
Men know, they know their impulses, and more importantly, we know that we are dying. We know we shouldn't, we aren't made for it. We fight it, we strive all our lives for immortality, whether in our children, our work, or in our sciences. We seek after a life that will outlast this feeble frame that could not know anything other than the desires which we so often let rule it.
But I know this, I know that my Redeemer lives.
Man cannot grasp the immortal, he cannot reach it in his mortal weakness, but the Immortal reached down and joined humanity. He bound Himself to our desire ridden flesh, but was not subject to it.
This is the knowledge that brings immortality. There are no Socratic Christian Philosophers, because you can't start with the question 'what is justice?' when you confess the Sacrificed King. When the demands of justice were fulfilled by the only Man who has ever done His duty, and not that of any other man. For just as doctors are to be consulted for sicknesses, only the Son of God, and Him crucified could redeem His fallen world.
Christ is Risen, and there is no other knowledge, of things above the earth or things under the earth, by which men are saved.
I hope you enjoyed reading my rambles. Thanks for making it to the end.
1 comment:
I shall try not to ramble. :P
First of all, I greatly enjoyed your post. I do ever so love my Plato, and the Republic is a great work.
Secondly, I think it is important to keep in mind that Plato came historically before Christ. Why does this make a difference you ask? Well, because there is a difference between a philosopher saying "Man cannot know anything" and a philosopher saying "Man cannot know anything except through divine revelation". Socrates himself refers to a "damon" or "demon" (which back meant spirit) which guided him and revealed this lack of knowledge to him. Socrates argues that man can ultimately never find and understand the true source as it should be fully known. Man is finite and thereby by definition cannot grasp the infinite. Man cannot know (and by know, I mean the whole matter or the essence, that which makes it wholly what it is) the infinite wisdom.
But even us as Christians agree that we cannot know God without His aid. Without the revelation of His Son, Jesus Christ who is the Haga Sophia (the Holy Wisdom), then how can man ever begin to reach, to understand the infinite almighty God? If we are dead in our sin, blinded by the darkness, merely chasing shadows on the wall, how then can we see? We must be dragged kicking and screaming into the light, into the sun. And when we come there, we are blinded. But as we live there, the light reveals more to us and slowly through its revelation we begin to begin to understand.
Thirdly, you state:
"There are no Socratic Christian Philosophers, because you can't start with the question 'what is justice?' when you confess the Sacrificed King."
A Christian can start with the question "What is justice?", but add to it "What is it in Christ that is just?" and "If Christ is justice, what is the essence of Christ? Or justice?". We know Christ as He has been revealed.
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12 ESV)
For just as Socrates says that man cannot know, so we cannot know what we have not been given, nor completely grasp or comprehend the mystery of Christ, who is justice, peace, mercy, grace, wisdom, and all good things. Thus if we cannot fully know Him now in this present life, how can we fully know these things?
Again, you state: "When the demands of justice were fulfilled by the only Man who has ever done His duty, and not that of any other man. For just as doctors are to be consulted for sicknesses, only the Son of God, and Him crucified could redeem His fallen world."
How indeed true this is. For God, only Him, and only Him alone, can fulfill justice. Only He can understand it, can grasp its essence, and satisfy its requirements. And thus man cannot know, man is not complete. Plato, Socrates were both right about this: man cannot grasp the infinite in and of himself. But thanks be to God, He sent the infinite into the finite, into man himself. This revelation, this knowledge given to man is the only way man can know anything, the only thing man can know because it has been revealed to him.
So to conclude these rambles, I see a way that a Socratic Christian philosopher could exist - at least according to the arguments presented in your post. There are many other views of Socrates and Plato that I have not fully grasped or understand or have read at all, so these understand of mine is subject to change if new evidence presents itself.
In conclusion, I love to talk about Plato. Nothing I said was in hostility, but in friendly discussion. I hope to see you very soon. Keep up the good work of philosophizing! Good stuff!
(Pst, you should read Martin Buber now and more of Plato.)
Post a Comment