Was Socrates Wise About God Essay Research
Was Socrates Wise About God? Essay, Research Paper
October 18, 2000
Socrates? s Wisdom of God
In this paper I will try to specify, for the reader, the true significance of wisdom and all of its parts. I will seek to explicate cognition and the knower versus the known. I will besides, effort to explicate precisely how a individual comes to be considered wise, as Socrates was. So, in truth, explain the Socratic method. Hopefully, by the clip the reader has finished this paper, he/she will hold a good appreciation on my ain sentiment of Socrates and besides, have a appreciation on the definition of wisdom and how it applies to Socrates. I will carry through theses undertakings by utilizing the plants of Plato, the Apology, the Crito and the Phaedo, in hopes to turn out my point.
What is wisdom? The actual significance, or etymology of the word is rooted in the Indo-germanic words such as weid, woid, wid significance, ? to see? .
Only $13.90 / page
The etymology of wisdom besides can be seen in the verb? humor? from German, which means, ? to cognize? ( Mohr, 3 ) . So, the etymology is excessively see and to cognize. This is the definition I will spread out on. Wisdom is a type of seeing. Sing means that the visionary and the object being seen are united. This brotherhood of the visionary or apprehender and the known or seen is Knowledge. Knowledge can be in relation to virtually anything where there is a brotherhood of the apprehender and the known. One can be the apprehender of Biology and he knows about life. He has knowledge about life. One can cognize psychological science and have knowledge about the human mind. But my inquiry is, are the Biologist and the Psychologist truly wise? ? Or do they merely have one type of cognition on one select topic? Take this analogy for illustration. A individual may hold a complete apprehension of how to sit a bike. They know all of the Torahs and the mechanics and the natural philosophies of the full construct of siting a motorcycle. But they have ne’er tried to sit it ; to see it ( category notes ) . Do they have wisdom of how to sit a bike?
I believe wisdom is knowledge, most decidedly. But, it is non that simple. I believe that in order for one to be considered wise, one must hold more than one type of cognition, such as the individual who knows how siting a motorcycle plant. That is what is called theoretical cognition. There are two types of cognition. Theoretical cognition is the cognition of how the cardinal Torahs of a state of affairs ( such as siting a bike ) work. There is besides a 2nd type of cognition. That is practical cognition. Practical cognition by definition is, a cognition of how to make something or life experience ( for illustration, being able to physically sit a bike ) . So, once more I ask, what is wisdom? Well, one portion of my ain definition is that wisdom is cognition of the practical every bit good as the theoretical. It is life experience every bit good as being able to understand and appreciate the Torahs and mechanics or basicss of a state of affairs.
Another facet I believe is indispensable to wisdom is the ability to constantly inquiry one? s milieus. I believe that it is perfectly indispensable for one to first uncertainty, so inquiry, so pass on 1s thought. In this method, it is the chief aim to invariably seek for the truth in every state of affairs.
The last facet that I believe is necessary to incarnate wisdom is a little more hard to explicate. It has to make with the statements supra, as in the changeless pursuit for truth. To lawfully be on a pursuit for truth one must make the followers: First, inquiry themselves. By making this, they will hold the ability to cognize themselves. In order for one to cognize him/herself, one must hold cognition of God? s being and ever-presence. By cognizing one? s ego and by cognizing God, one will hold a scruples, which will be the component of good judgement, decion devising and pureness of motivations.
Now, the initial inquiry that has been argued for ages, was Socrates wise? ? As I had stated antecedently, to be wise is to cognize one? s ego, to cognize God through oppugning, therefore oppugning the truth. In the Apology, Socrates does merely that. His friend Cherephon went to the Oracle at Delphi to happen out if there was a adult male wiser than Socrates. The sacred prophet? s reply to this was that no adult male was wiser than Socrates. To this statement, Socrates was in incredulity. He said that he did non understand how this was possible, claiming that he was non wise because he knew nil except that he knew nil ( Apology, 22e-23b ) . He went out to turn out
that the work forces most consider wise were genuinely wiser than himself. He inquiries three types of presumptively wise work forces: a poet, a craftsman and a politician. To each of these work forces, he found they had cognition of their specific country, flowery authorship, constructing things, and persuasive address ( Apology, 22a-c ) . But he found no secular truths with in them. Therefore, they had merely one type of cognition, either practical or theoretical, yet non both. Therefore, he concluded that they are non wise. So he proved the prophet correct.
If Socrates was wise, he must hold known God. If the prophet was true, he was wise. Than all of his cognition and wisdom was from God. Therefore, he believed that he is inspired by God. Because he knew God and knew himself, the combination of the two were his scruples. His scruples told him non to take portion in political personal businesss of the province. He believed that God does non desire him to. He was on a mission from God. Therefore, he was being obedient to the God. ( Apology, 31c-32e ) .
Besides, Socrates said he did non acquire paid for any of his doctrines. It was for the good of the psyche merely. He did non make it for money of to accomplish greater societal position ( Mohr, p.11 ) . He believed that halting his mission from God, intending non to pattern doctrine, would be existent cogent evidence that he was an aetheist, because he would be traveling against God? s program for him.
Besides, Socrates? s actions show that he was wholly wise about God in his position of his ain pending decease. Socrates had the chance to appeal to the emotions of the jury by conveying in his married woman and kids. He chose non to make this. He believed that it was non in Gods program for him to populate. Therefore he did non seek to rip off decease. If he fears decease than he pretends to cognize what he does non cognize in presuming decease is evil. If he fears decease he disobeys God, stops his pursuit for the truth and Michigans loving, for God is love. He besides faced decease will no fright. Because if he does non fear decease than he would be able to obey God, continue quest and go on to philosophise ( category notes ) . He besides does non feign to cognize what decease is like because he said, ? it is known to no 1, except God ( Apology, 42a ) . ?
In the Crito, Socrates? s near friend tried to convert him to salvage himself and get away from gaol. Socrates said that he will non get away from prison, even if he is held at that place as an guiltless individual. He said, ? Neither to make incorrect or return a wrong is of all time, non even to wound in return for hurt received ( Mohr, pg. 13 ) . ? Therefore, he refused to salvage himself. Even though Crito appealed to Socrates? s emotions, by stating he needs to be at that place for his boies, besides that Crito himself will lose a really beloved friend. But, this statement is to no help. Socrates believed that he was put here on the Earth for a ground, a mission from God. He believed that he must finish his mission. And by fearing decease, and get awaying from prison, he would non be carry throughing his mission.
In the Phaedo, Socrates attempted to explicate to his friends why he was non afraid of decease. He said that to fear decease is feigning to cognize what you do non cognize. In making this he showed his devouring belief and wisdom of God? s program for him. His friends reminded him of Cebes statement. Socrates responded to Cebes statement that it is incorrect to take one? s ain life because we are ownerships of the God by stating that it would be wholly evil for him to resent decease if he was non certain that God wanted him to decease, so that he could travel to a topographic point where wiser, better work forces are in a wiser better topographic point ( Phaedo, 63a-c ) . And he said he believed that he was non deceasing in vain or that he was merely perpetrating suicide. He was deceasing so that he could go on philosophising. He was deceasing for communicating, love, cognizing God and cognizing himself and others. He called doctrine the pattern of decease. And that is precisely what it is.
So, in decision, Socrates is wise about God. His actions proved that is so. He would non differ from God? s program from him in seeking to salvage his ain life. He knew that he was God? s gift and it was non in God? s program for him to go on to populate in this universe. He would hold ageless life in God. There he would be able to be in complete brotherhood with God, hence, he was called to finish wisdom. For being wise is cognizing God, cognizing one? s ego, cognizing LOVE and others. It was his bend to cognize love everlastingly with God. He communicated his inquiries and thought, hence practising Philosophy. He was genuinely wise.