Virtue, Wisdom and "Free" Speech

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.”

-Socrates

Socrates is one of my favourite political philosophers because not only did he hold Virtue and Wisdom in the highest esteem, he also voiced his truths about these topics in exchange for nothing, until the day “he died” (was unjustly sentenced to death for voicing his truths), despite the relentless resistance he faced at the time. Since his death in 399 BC, he has often been unfairly and incorrectly portrayed as a religious figure, suggesting that his participation in religious practices and his levels of civil obedience were much greater than they were. Since it was very uncommon to take a non-conforming position in Athens during that time-period, he was prevented from being able to attain the types of employment that others were able to secure because any connection to Socrates would pose a risk to businesses and their “reputation”. But since Socrates had been born into a family with a very limited amount of wealth and power, he was already quite used to having fewer opportunities and in many ways, preferred a modest life, I think. But above all, he possessed a spirit that was not easily dampened, so instead of feeling discouraged by these limitations, he used much of his free time to "employ" himself in the best way that he could. And that was by spreading his wisdom far and wide throughout Athens, “corrupting” all those who were “unlucky” enough to cross his path. It is no surprise, that the ones most inclined to stop and listen to his words, were Athens youth, particularly the ones who shared his apprehensions about ancient Greek religion and accepting the truths that had been imposed upon them. His method of teaching appealed to these individuals because Socrates always posed his knowledge in a manner that inspired the listener to form their own thoughts and opinions about the subject at hand, which was very appealing to these wisdom seekers, that is, the ones who trusted him. However, this method of teaching was considered very unique at the time, so unique in fact, that Socrates would have been unlikely to think of himself as a teacher at all. I wonder how surprised he would be to find out that his life would inspire an entire method of thinking that would span timelessly across the generations that followed his, occasionally (rarely), referred to as the Socratic method of teaching, which nurtures ones understanding of concepts like morality and justice, concepts that I would argue are much more likely to be discussed in private learning institutions, in the Western world today.

When sciences exploded onto the scene in and around the 17th century, the memory of Socrates and the concept of virtue got rather lost in the mix of things. Later, this time-period would be personified by many individuals who described it as the “the age of enlightenment”, suggesting that anything during and after that era would be an improvement to anything that occurred before it, from a general perspective. When this word is used in a just manner and for its original purpose, the word “enlightenment” is used to describe a human and a specific moment of understanding that occurs within the mind of that individual. For example, I could say “After reaching this moment of enlightenment, I was able to better understand my purpose in life…”. When used in this context, something truly improved for the better; as opposed to when this word is used to describe an era in history, because it is impossible to predict that everything that comes after that point will be an improvement. And looking at the state of things currently, I think we can all agree, that that did not end up being the case. This is not a jab at the sciences necessarily, but rather, a way of bringing attention to the manipulation of words that has occurred over time and how those manipulations have affected our understanding of the world.

Thank goodness Socrates talked as much as he did, otherwise there may not have been enough of his quotes to make it all the way into the 21st century. That is, if you can even detect his influence at all. However, if we do happen to hear his words (documented quotes) being mimicked in contemporary Western societies, although they may seem prophetic to us, in sound, it is important to remember that Socrates, himself, had very little attachment to religion or religious practices. This was a paradox that inspired much criticism in the 4th century, by his peers, who often felt that his day-to-actions did not reflect the virtue that he “preached” of, often dismissing both him and his ideas. At the time, Athenians were much more likely to mock him for the "contradictory" life he led, then to befriend him and absorb the wisdom that was deeply embedded into his words. But Socrates didn’t mind making some enemies if it meant that he could create a more just world for everybody.

Unfortunately, however, the very opposite would start to occur after his death, when many individuals began manipulating his wisdom for their own personal gain and self-interest. Socrates’ truths about virtue and wisdom are now so deeply intertwined into the Western world, that they are almost impossible to pinpoint exactly, unless one seeks out this knowledge specifically themselves or by pursuing a higher education in liberal studies, for example. I would say that, without a single doubt, the level of influence that Socrates has had on our political environments is now completely immeasurable, which I think, confirms all the answers to any lingering questions about whether Politics is a science…which it most definitely, is not.

In ancient Rome, it has been said, that the topic of “virtue” was a main concern for politicians and was a topic that was commonly included in most discussions concerning more “practical matters”. In our modern world, this would include topics like market structure, proportional tax, and gross domestic product for example. However, in today’s Western world, unless one has had a religious upbringing, been involved with a private learning institution in some capacity, sought out knowledge specifically pertaining to virtue or has attained a higher education in either pedagogy, theology, philosophy, teleology, or liberal studies, the concept of “virtue” is almost unheard of. Furthermore, if one is lucky enough to benefit from this Socratic-inspired education, it will of course, contribute to the likelihood that that person will not only find their specific excellency within themselves, as an individual, while boosting their trustworthiness as a citizen but it will also, typically, make that person more employable, therefore, more likely to attain a position of political power because they’ve had a head start in life, you could say (depending on when their wisdom was obtained, of course). I guess what I’m trying to say is, the study of virtue is essentially being “protected” by private institutions that were, themselves, inspired by a person (Socrates) who not only sacrificed his life to provide a living example for others, but also chose death over an existence that denied him his purpose in life (which was to share his truths freely with everybody equally). Although there may not have been a word in existence to exactly describe Socrates feeling of desperation at the time, he seemed to know in his heart that his main purpose in life would be taken from him, if he would not be allowed to practice his unique style of "logos”. This was a term that came into existence shortly after his death, which would later be incorporated into Aristotle’s political philosophy only fifty years later, in his book titled Politics, where he discusses “logos”, defining it as “reasoned discourse” and how this ability (to have both speech and reason) fulfills our very purpose as humans because these abilities are the exact things which are distinctive to our species.

If Socrates life taught us anything, it’s that we are all born with the same amount of virtue. It is our political environments (so, every single environment on earth in which more than one person is present basically) that will determine whether we will be able to detect this virtue or not. Moreover, these environments will be the deciding factor in whether we will be able to find what our specific excellency even is as individuals or not.

So, now, if we think about the concept of “freedom of speech” and how this human right’s law is being protected by nations individually and then connect our understanding of this concept to Aristotle’s wisdom about purpose (that I discussed two posts ago) which was inspired by Socrates (as he was one of Aristotle’s main inspirations) and then connect that wisdom to this discussion about virtue, we can see very clearly that by denying citizens the right to free speech, you are essentially denying them part of their very purpose in life, that being their ability to be social beings. However, the majority, of citizens in those societies will still be left with their ability to rationalize, which, obviously, creates various levels of tension for citizens who are feeling eager to share their truths. And because they are not able to nurture their purpose in life to its fullest potential (therefore, effecting their virtue too because they are even less likely to be able to find their specific excellency within themselves) they are being deprived the opportunity to express their reasoning skills in a manner that suits them as individuals. Finally, if we now consider humans, natural, deeply embedded, need to want to protect each other as a species, we can understand why some citizens would desperately want to share their truths in a manner that could possibly empower those they feel are being denied access to the very truths which could impact their sense of fulfillment, by authority figures who are either directly or indirectly inhibiting these natural human rights.

While I do understand that there are many aspects of “developed” nations that would be very unwise for “developing” nations to mimic, protecting citizens right to free speech is most definitely, not one of those things. I have never felt more grateful than I do, in this very moment, to be living in a country where free speech is being protected by a governing leader who shares my passion about this right. A country that not only tolerates free speech but almost encourages it (in a sense) which enables me to share my thoughts about virtue and wisdom, which were inspired by political philosophers who understood the true worth of this gift (to achieve reason and/or reasoned speech). It was because of their struggles to find this gift within themselves, that they were able to see the true worth of this ability, an ability that they, themselves, longed to possess. I sincerely hope that more nations will allow their citizens to be granted their human right to free speech, so that more citizens may have the opportunity to enjoy their purpose in life to the fullest, like I am now able to do. Furthermore, I should think that it is almost imperative that the right to free speech is being protected before citizens in these nations have access to social media platforms (please fill in blanks somebody).

Aristotle believed that every natural thing on earth has a purpose, and since human beings are one of those natural things, it means that we must have a purpose too. However, this does not mean that we must go searching for our purpose, it means, we already have it. More generally, you were born with a purpose and that purpose is to achieve reason and/or reasoned speech. All we have to do, is free ourselves from all societal pressures, “expectations” and our modern ideas about “success” because if we do that, then we are left with the beautiful realization that we are already fulfilling our purpose in life just simply, by evolving. I personally think this a wonderful conclusion to be able to come to and one that could breed a lifetime of healthy thinking.

A common criticism about political philosophers, is that they do not include enough examples or specifics in their work. However, political philosophers have never claimed to be experts in examples or specifics. Their specific excellency is attending to the larger questions in life, relating to politics (in the most general sense of the word, at that) and hope that others will “fill in their blanks” because those are blanks that they, themselves, are not experts in. They know that everybody is equal in “intelligence” because the concept of “intelligence” only exists because we made it so. In fact, I would argue that one of the main reasons why they document so many of their thoughts, is because of their belief in the intelligence of others, and know that there will be others who will be experts in filling in all their blanks, which will help to complete their work. Basically, all the work that political philosophers ever do is unfinished work because they do not possess the skills that others do, which allows those individuals to fully finish their work. They are simply saying “these are the most important questions that you should be attending to in your political society” and that is all. They know that there will be others who are much better suited for details. Details are not their strong suit.

I know that I have no control over what others will do with my wisdom. I don’t have control over their perspective or how they will interpret or (choose to interpret) my work. I don’t have control over whether they will share the wisdom or keep it for themselves. All I can do in my limited position of power, is follow in Socrates TRUE method, which was the act of spreading wisdom freely to all. Socrates didn’t care about leaving a legacy. It was not of great importance to him that he would be credited for all his individual thoughts. What he cared about, was that people were sharing their wisdom freely, whatever wisdom they believed was most grounded in the truth. He could see how many more people would be able to find fulfillment in life if everybody did this. And best of all, it would support gradual change, inspiring gradual shifts, that would occur naturally over time, in a manner that would be much less likely to inspire war and unnecessary animosity. Because sharing your truths freely is the only real way you can gain someone's real trust, therefore, that’s the only way that different political societies can gain each others’ real trust too. Because if we share all our best kept wisdom with the Eastern world, then the Eastern world will be more likely to share all their best kept wisdom with us (the West) as well. And once we are all united in our truths about the world then we will be growing as one world, naturally, together. And at that moment, we will finally be able to say that we have reached the age of enlightenment and will be able to know for sure that we are making a true statement when we say it.

Sincerely,

Heather

Note: This post was inspired by Socrates, Aristotle, the most recent, on-line, seminar discussion that I had with my class (LBST442: Great Minds, Great Ideas) and the quote “The human brain now holds the key to our future. We have to recall the image of the planet from outer space: a single entity in which air, water and continents are interconnected. This is our home.” -David Suzuki