Discourses and Selected Writings (16 page)

[27] That is the sort of person you’ll find I am: trustworthy, honourable, noble and poised. [28] Not, to be sure, immune to death, age or disease, like God, but still prepared to die and face illness with a godlike dignity. [29] That much is mine to do, even if I cannot accomplish the rest.

In short, I will show you that I have the strength – of a philosopher. ‘And what strength would that be?’ A will that never fails to get what it wants, a faculty of aversion that always avoids what it dislikes, proper impulse, careful purpose and disciplined assent. That’s the human specimen you should prepare yourselves to see.

[1] Who are you? In the first place, a human being, which is to say, a being possessed of no greater faculty than free choice, with all your other faculties subordinate to it, choice itself being unconfined and independent. [2] Next, consider the gift of reason: it sets you apart from wild animals; it sets you apart from sheep. [3] By virtue of these two faculties you are a member of the universe with full citizen rights; you were born not to serve but to govern, because you understand the divine order and its pattern.

[4] Now, what does the title ‘citizen’ mean? In this role, a person never acts in his own interest or thinks of himself alone, but, like a hand or foot that had sense and realized its place in the natural order, all its actions and desires aim at nothing except contributing to the common good. [5] Therefore, philosophers rightly say, ‘If a good person knew that sickness, death or disability lay in his future, he would actually invite them, because he realizes that this is part of the universal plan and that the universe has precedence over a constituent, and the city over any one citizen. [6] But since we don’t know the future, we’re justified in sticking to things that are preferable by nature, because this, after all, is our instinct from birth.’

[7] Next, remember that you are somebody’s son. What does this social role mean? It means regarding everything of yours as belonging to your father as well, always letting him have his way, never trying to hurt him with your words or actions, or griping about him behind his back. Defer to him at every opportunity, and in the same spirit cooperate with him as best you can.

[8] Next, know that you are a brother. This role also calls for deference, respect and civility. Never get into family fights over material things; give them up willingly, and your moral standing will increase in proportion. [9] Make a gift of your box seat in the theatre, or a bit of food, if that’s at stake, and see the gratitude you get in return – how much greater it is than the sacrifice.

[10] Finally, reflect on the other social roles you play. If you are a council member, consider what a council member should do. If you are young, what does being young mean, if you are old, what does age imply, [11] if you are a father, what does fatherhood entail? Each of our titles, when reflected upon, suggests the acts appropriate to it.

[12] If you go off and yell at your brother, my reaction is to say, ‘You’ve forgotten who you are and what you stand for.’ [13] I mean, if you were a metalworker who fumbled with his tools, you would have lost touch with the metalworker you once were. If you forget what it means to be a brother and become your brother’s enemy, don’t think you’ve made a trivial exchange. [14] If you are transformed from a decent, social human being into some mean, snarling, dangerous beast, is there no loss involved? Or do you have to lose money before you feel penalized? Is losing money the only loss that counts with us?

[15] If you lost the capacity to read, or play music, you would think it was a disaster, but you think nothing of losing the capacity to be honest, decent and civilized. [16] Yet those other misfortunes come from some outside cause, while these are your own fault. Moreover, it is neither honourable to have those other abilities nor dishonourable to lose them, whereas it
is
dishonourable to lose these capacities and a misfortune for which we have only ourselves to blame. [17] A catamite is deprived of his manhood, his seducer is no longer the man he was either, and is compromised in a hundred other ways besides. [18] An adulterer does away with a just, decent and honourable human being – the good neighbour and citizen he might have been. A sorehead incurs one kind of loss, a coward another – [19] but no one is bad without loss or penalty of some kind.

Now, if you look for their penalty in terms of money, you might find them all safe and scot-free; they could even be helped and rewarded for their offence if they gain by it financially. [20] But, if money is your only standard, then consider that, by your lights, someone who loses their nose does not suffer any harm.

‘Yes they do, they’re maimed physically.’

[21] But what if they are deprived just of the sense of smell – in other words, isn’t there an associated psychic faculty, which is good to have and a misfortune to lose?

[22] ‘What do you mean by “psychic faculty”?’

Aren’t we born with a sense of fairness?

‘We are.’

If you destroy it, is there no harm, is nothing sacrificed, don’t we lose something dear? [23] Don’t we have an innate sense of honour, a sense of benevolence, a sense of kindness and compassion? Well, if someone willingly parts with
these
sensibilities, do you suppose they go unpunished and unhurt?

[24] ‘Well, does that mean that if someone wrongs me I shouldn’t hurt them in return?’ First of all, look at what wrongdoing is and remember what you have heard about it from philosophers.
²⁶
[25] Because if ‘good’ as well as ‘bad’ really relate to our choices, then consider whether your position does not amount to saying something like, [26] ‘Well, since that guy hurt himself with the injustice he did me, shouldn’t I wrong him in order to hurt myself in retaliation?’

[27] So why don’t we actually picture it to ourselves this way? Instead, we see injury only where physical or financial loss is incurred, whereas if the loss stems from our own choices, then we don’t suspect any harm has been done. [28] After all, we don’t get a headache after an error in judgement or an act of injustice; we don’t get eye trouble or stomach ache, we don’t lose property. [29] And for us those are the only things that matter. As to whether our character will remain loyal and honest, or become false and depraved, we don’t care about that in the least – except insofar as it comes up for examination in school; [30] the result being that our debating skills improve at the cost of our character.

[1] People who come to philosophy the right way – by the front door, as it were – begin by acknowledging their own faults and limitations in areas of most urgency. [2] The isosceles triangle and the half-tone or quarter-tone scale – we have no knowledge pertaining to these subjects when we come into the world. We have to learn about them later through specialized training; with the result that no one untrained in these subjects pretends to know about them.

[3] The situation is otherwise in the case of our ideas about good and bad, right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, happiness, duty, and obligation. We are born with an innate understanding of what these words mean. [4] So everyone uses them, which is to say, everyone tries to apply the related preconceptions to specific things. [5] ‘Her action was good, it was her duty, it was not her duty, she was fortunate, she was not fortunate, she is honest, she is dishonest…’ You hear such phrases all the time, because no one is in any doubt about how to use the words. No one feels they have to wait to be told their meaning, the way we once had to learn our letters or be taught how words are pronounced. [6] The reason is that we come into the world knowing some things that nature, you might say, has taught us already; and, building on this knowledge, we come to form our opinions.

[7] ‘Well, whatever you may say, I know good from bad, and have an idea of the good.’

You have one, I allow.

‘And I put it into practice.’

You use it in specific instances, yes.

‘And I use it correctly.’

[8] Well, that’s the crux, because this is where opinions become an issue. Starting with the ideas we take for granted, we get into arguments whenever we apply them incorrectly. [9] If, along with the innate ideas, we came into the world with knowledge of how they should be applied, we would be perfect wise men from the moment we were born.

[10] Now, you think that you do possess this extra knowledge of how to apply preconceptions in particular instances. How did you come by it?

‘It’s my opinion.’

But someone else has a different opinion, and also believes that he is the one applying his preconceptions correctly. Am I right?

‘I guess so.’

[11] And if you clash over the application of preconceptions, you can’t both be using them correctly.

‘Agreed.’

[12] Well, can you come up with a better aid to their application than your opinion? I mean, a lunatic acts in accordance with his own opinion of what is good; but in his case can it function as an adequate guide?

‘No.’

So let’s move beyond opinion; is there nothing better?

[13] Here you have philosophy’s starting point: we find that people cannot agree among themselves, and we go in search of the source of their disagreement. In time, we come to scorn and dismiss simple opinion, and look for a way to determine if an opinion is right or wrong. At last, we focus on finding a standard that we can invoke, just as the scale was invented to measure weights, and the carpenter’s rule devised to distinguish straight from crooked. [14] That is the beginning of philosophy.

Are everyone’s opinions correct? How can they be, when some conflict?

[15] ‘All right, not all are correct. But ours are.’

Well, why ours instead of the Syrians’ or Egyptians’ – why mine rather than those of any person picked at random?

‘No reason.’

Therefore, the fact that someone holds this or that opinion will not suffice to make it true, any more than we are inclined to trust a person’s word in dealing with weights and measures. In both cases, we have developed an objective standard instead. [16] So is there no standard for our case beyond opinion? Is it only humanity’s most important values that are going to remain vague and subjective? [17] There must be one. So let’s hunt for
it; and once we’ve found it, let’s commit to never making a single move without reference to it. [18] I conceive this discovery as the antidote to the madness that results from exclusive reliance on opinion as the criterion of truth. And from then on, starting with the familiar preconceptions, clearly defined, we will proceed to apply them to particular objects and events in a methodical manner.

[19] Name me a subject for discussion now.

‘Pleasure.’

[20] All right, put it to the test, lay it on the scales. For something to be good, it must be something we can rely on and trust.

‘I agree.’

Well, can we trust anything that comes and goes?

‘No.’

[21] And is pleasure constant?

‘No.’

Then take it out of the scale and banish it from the realm of goods.

[22] But if you’re none too sharp and missed it the first time, let’s try a different test. Something good should be a source of pride, correct?

‘Yes.’

And can one really take pride in a momentary pleasure? Please don’t say yes, or I will think you barely deserve to be regarded on the same level as draft animals.

[23] That is the way things are weighed and disagreements settled – when standards are established. [24] Philosophy aims to test and set such standards. [25] And the wise man is advised to make use of their findings right away.

[1] The philosophers of our school have told us precisely what we need to learn in order to know how to practise logical argument. But when it comes to practising it correctly in a book ii
particular situation – there we have no experience at all. [2] Just give us a random person to engage in dialogue and we won’t know what to do with him. After asking the person a few questions, if we don’t get the kinds of answer we expect, we throw up our hands and resort to ridicule or verbal abuse, saying, ‘He’s not a philosopher, it just isn’t possible to engage him in dialogue.’

[3] Well, when a guide meets up with someone who is lost, ordinarily his reaction is to direct him on the right path, not mock or malign him, then turn on his heel and walk away. [4] As for you, lead someone to the truth and you will find that he can follow.
²⁷
But as long as you don’t point it out to him, don’t make fun of him; be aware of what
you
need to work on instead.

[5] Consider how Socrates behaved. He would compel whomever he spoke with to voice their views, and one interlocutor was enough. Which is why he could say, ‘Everyone else can go hang, I am only interested in what the person I’m talking to has to say. No one’s vote counts with me except that of my partner in dialogue.’
²⁸
[6] Socrates would lay out the implications of their views so incisively that, regardless of who they were, they would all admit an inconsistency and back off from it:

[7] ‘Is a man racked by envy happy?’

‘Not at all, they’re miserable.’
^∗

‘Miserable over something bad? But whoever heard of envy for something bad?’

[8] Thus he made him say that envy is pain provoked by something good.

‘I mean, would someone be envious over something he cared nothing for?’

‘Obviously not.’
²⁹

[9] That is what Socrates would do: he would quit only after he had fleshed out an idea and explored its implications. He wouldn’t just say, ‘Define envy for me,’ then, when his
discourses interlocutor had ventured on a definition, say, ‘Wrong: your definiens is not extensionally equivalent to the definiendum’ – [10] technical terms which are incomprehensible and off – putting for the layman, and which we can’t resist using for that very reason. [11] As for using language that would enable even a non-philosopher, depending on his view, to answer with a simple yes or no – well, we don’t know how to engage anyone on that level. [12] And what happens is that we realize that we can’t do it and give up the attempt – those of us with any discretion, anyway. [13] Most people are impulsive, however, and, having committed to the thing, they persist, just making more confusion for themselves and others until it all ends in mutual recrimination.