Some professional philosophers today deny that there is any objective truth about how we ought to live. They deny that there is some one way to live which is right and does not depend on any human opinion about it. Yet both Socrates and Boethius are committed to the opposite view, that there is a body of objective moral truth that all people must recognize as the best, provided the right questions are asked of them. What evidence for their position do Socrates and Boethius provide? Does it convince you? Why or why not?
Introduction
Under relativist viewpoint on the concept of truth, no truth bearer can be objectively true. Under this view, a truth bearer, at most, can be true relative to a conceptual framework, parameter, or a definite situation. As such, a truth bearer does not have general implication; instead, it can be true only for a relative given “X”. Despite the fact, that this is a general viewpoint of most of the contemporary philosophers, neither Socrates nor Boethius share it. According to the two scholars, there is a difficulty with ideas expressed by relativists. In this paper, ideas of the two scholars on the matter of truth will be discussed. Firstly, the criterion of truth will be discussed, as viewed by the two scholars. The concept of truth arises from the complexities of the relationship between an individual and others; consequently, the notion of truth, in the work of Plato, will be discussed from the perspectives of responsibility and shame. The process of purification and redemption are also covered. The focus will then be shifted to the “Consolation of Philosophy” written by Boethius and the discussion of internal and external sources of human knowledge with God being the real knower through whom human beings can actually obtain access to the universal moral truth. Finally, the concluding remarks will be made on whether articulations of the two philosophers are convincing.
Socrates: Criterion of Truth
The criterion of Truth in “Gorgias” can be derived from the dialogue in which Socrates contrasts his own form of refutation with that of Gorgias and Polus. The criterion offered in this case is not self-evidence or analytical clarity; instead, it depends upon the agreement with the opponent. Socratic method of refutation derives its’ significance from the fact that it is directed at a particular audience. Consequently, the concept of truth is inter-subjective even though there are places in the text, where Socrates claims to have discovered the concept of truth that all human being should rely upon. Still, it should be noted that the universality of truth is not rooted in the epistemological grounds; instead, moral knowledge is grounded on the political notion of knowledge, which relies on “communications with others with whom I share a world” (Plato, 1987).
In a similar way, Boethius in “The Consolation” views moral truth as being universal and applicable to humanity overall. To be more precise, the external world is viewed as being distracting and people must “dispel this darkness of confusing emotions, which arises from… false opinions and which dazes the true vision” (p.20), whereas the “sights must be set on the divine, for goodness, happiness and godliness are one and the same thing” (p. 101).
Having established the criterion of truth, in the next sections, we will discuss the underlying reasons as to why moral truth appears to be universal being seemingly based on epistemological arguments. In particular, the notions of responsibility, shame, and redemption will be discussed from these perspectives, as the reaction to shame can either lead to discovery of new moral truth or can be regarded as an attempt to hide from truth, which means that the concept of truth is universal and can be discovered by an individual. When it comes to the notion of responsibility, the inner source that comes to be the source of knowledge about own guilt and wrongdoing can be viewed as the ultimate source of moral knowledge that is universal for humanity overall. In a similar way, philosophical ideas of Boethius will be discussed in order to understand the login underlying the concept of “universality” of moral truth.
Socrates: Truth and the Concept of Responsibility
The concept of Responsibility in Plato’s “Gorgias” is most representative in terms of moral truth. According to Plato, Responsibility is the continuity of the Self through the series of the life stages. Given a man is the cause of all actions for which he/she can either take pride or blame, the man firstly becomes conscious of Self as the continuation of own experience. The are two “Selves” – firstly, the active one, that is responsible for morality and acknowledged by a human being prior to acknowledgement of a passive and sensitive Self in which sensory impressions are reflected. As such, there is clear idea of soul in work of Plato, which is a strictly natural representation and is a continuity and sameness of active, responsible and moral. The idea of soul can be represented only through the vision and not scientifically; it is represented not only through responsibility, but also through hope and fear, given it is represented through the vision of Judgment, Purification and Penance. Human beings are in this case not the passive followers, but, instead, those how develop their native powers on the way to purification through correction.
Following this view, wrongdoing and fear are both conscious acts that spring up from the personal endeavor after the good. The very punishment that is feared by people is intended for the ultimate good, since future can still be modified through punishment, whereas past remains unchanged. Pardon, then, cannot be founded on the real of science; instead, this is a natural process which comes of the grace of God. As such, the inner self is the ultimate source of all knowledge about the moral truth.
Socrates: the Concept of Shame
The concept of shame is used by Socrates in order to ensure the necessary emotional support to his arguments by enabling the truth of the conclusions by incorporating them into the person’s principles of life and the internal principle of action.
The concept of truth enters the writing through the refutation of Gorgias. Since the rhetoric presented by Gorgias is morally neutral, Gorgias claims that he cannot be responsible for the behavior of his students when they choose to use the rhetoric unjustly. The formal structure of the argument is as follows:
- Rhetoric taught by Gorgias is neutral; consequently, teacher cannot be held responsible for unrightfully actions of his students;
- Rhetoric taught by Gorgias in concerned with both justice and injustice; consequently, when a student comes to the teacher asking to teach him, he will be taught by Gorgias;
- Given a student knows what is right and what is wrong, he or she will be acting solely justly, being just by nature;
- Consequently, students that will learn about the notion of justice from Gorgian rhetoric will never act unrightfully.
The notion of shame enters the dialogue, as Gorgias is ashamed of accepting a premise that the rhetorician will end up teaching students being just, which the leads to a contradictions with the earlier thesis that rhetoric must be neutral. Consequently, truth in this case is incorporated as the internal principle of action for people with the logic being the general line of reliance to which they cannot contradict, whereas shame acts as a guardian of truth.
The refutation of Callicles is much longer as compared to that of Gorgias with the importance of the refutation being rooted in an attempt of Socrates to understand the nature of opponent in terms of what should be considered shameful and honorable. In the first argument, the hedonistic pursuit of maximum pleasure is being compared the owning a leaky vessel that must be replenished. Socrates then argues that the best life is the life of minimal desires, as a vessel would then have fewer holes and, consequently, this vessel will not have to continuously replenished. The argument can be summarized the following way:
- Good and the opposite of it cannot be found in the same subject and, consequently, cannot cease together;
- Pleasure and paid can be present in the subject;
- Consequently, pleasure is not pain, as the two are mutually exclusive.
Noteworthy is how Callicles responds to sexual example presented by Socrates, as it shows how the feelings of shame can be competing within the same individual. Shame in this case it turned outwards to how he will be seen if he looses his argument rather then to how he would view himself. Further articulation of Socrates shows that he now suspects Callicles of not engaging in the search for moral truth; instead, Callicles is now arguing in order not to loose.
The revealed concept of shame is very representative. In the case of Gorgias, he is ashamed into insincerely professing to teach his students to be just, as he knows that the public will then condemn the moral neutrality. Then, he is shamed into holding on to the hedonism thesis, since he does not want the audience to catch him in a logical contradiction. In both situations, the feeling of shame is prospective, as in involves author’s thoughts being revealed to third party in an inappropriate context. Insincere reply in both cases is a way of concealing of hiding the truth. When it comes to Callicles, the situation is reversed, as the hedonism thesis is revealed as being inappropriate or untrue to him. As such, he then retreats to the thesis being false and further replaces it with the thesis that some pleasures can be better than others. The teaching about moderation is being justified by the moral truth that the opponents have agreed upon: some pleasures can be better than the others.
The concept of shame, as presented by Socrates reveals a number of things in terms of the role of shame in case of others witnessing another people’s actions and also the relationship with “self”. To be more precise, the experience of being ashamed involves others witnessing the faults, whereas own feeling of shame can be defined as the internalization of expectation of others of what appears to be morally correct. Following the same logic, there is a mutually accepted notion of moral truth which human beings follow in their thoughts and in their actions. Yet, it should be noted, that the mechanism of shame involves personal “Self” as being the ultimate judge to decide what the truth is and what is not. The experience of being ashamed involves being unmasked as a result of being seen inappropriately by others, whereas the “Self” is what decides what the expectations of others are. Consequently, revelation of self can be referred to as the ultimate moral rightness.
Based on the discussion above, one can logically conclude that for Socrates, the moral belief becomes knowledge when it is re-affirmed with another person’s moral knowledge. Since there are cases when there are no moral experts and, consequently, moral belief cannot be re-affirmed, one must move on to the moral knowledge that is universally true. Moral truth can be achieved through connection to the inner self that is not corrupted. Given human beings are mutually interconnected; the supreme good is the source of genuine moral knowledge.
Boethius: Knowing and the Nature of Knower
According to Boethius, all knowledge results not from being known in accordance to its’ nature, but, instead, to the nature of its’ knower. As such, the real source of knowledge is self-knowledge, which is the guiding theme of instructions in the life of human being. Since God is the only real knower according to Beothius, the knowledge of human beings is limited by the extent to which they actually know God. Given God is the only source of knowledge and Boethius refers to Christianity, which is a monotheistic religion, there is universal knowledge, which is God himself and how he knows the world.
Human beings can know the God, who is the source of moral knowledge, only to the extent they actually know themselves (Astell, 1994). As such, a human being must establish the connection with God in order to receive access to knowledge. Still, reason alone is not sufficient enough for absolute self-understanding. In the final part of Consolation, Boethius provides a full definition of a human being and positions humankind within cosmos. This once again refers to God as being the ultimate source of universal knowledge that cannot be attained through reason, but, instead, will be revealed through the connection with God.
Boethius: Outward vs. Internal Sources of Human Happiness
Given human being cannot know God due to the fact that God is omniscient, whereas human faculties are limited, degree to which a human being can know God is a factor of how well a human being is able to emancipate from control by external sources.
According to Boethius, nothing external can actually destroy or cause human happiness. Instead, the loss of external goods assists in discovering of what really endures. Due to the fact that temporary material things result in the level of happiness that incomplete in nature because it lacks spirituality, they point beyond the material world, eternal good that result in lasting happiness. As such, external sources if human happiness are nothing but only a partial expression of the higher good that can be attained through a complete relationship with God.
Following the logic of Boethius, external sources of knowledge and material factors that stimulate human desire and subsequent action are distracting, whereas internal sources and establishment of the identity with God is the source of happiness. As such, God is the end and origin of human nature with creator being the ultimate source of knowledge.
Conclusion
Having assessed the positions of the two philosophers on the subject of objective moral truth, a number of issues do raise doubts. Firstly, existence of objective moral truth is dependent upon religious beliefs. To be more precise, the views of Boethius are based on his theological position and tied to God being the only one. If a person belongs to polytheist religion, augments of Boethius in favor of objective moral truth are invalid, as given there are more than one God, consequently, the source of truth must also be more than one. In a similar way, arguments of Plato are not based on epistemological grounds; they are subjective to what a person actually believes. Furthermore, the very process of purification through which human beings go on the quest for moral truth is based on societal norms, which are learned rather than in-born. Consequently, existence of single moral truth becomes doubtful, given conscious and “Self” are learned.
Overall, the view of two scholars complement in many ways to the recent religious trend of Transcendentalism. Under this position, there is a unified source of knowledge to which all human beings are connected; as such, the issue is whether a person will actually be able to find this connection in oneself and in such way reveal the genuine knowledge that be attained through rejection of material world and complete reliance on God as the only guide.
As such, the positions held by the two philosophers are very subjective and in case if God is not recognized as the only sources of knowledge or “self” is viewed more as that of being learned rather than in-born, the argumentation falls apart.
Works Cited
Astell, Ann W., Job, Boethius and Epic Truth. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994.
Relihan, Joel C., trans., Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co., 2001.
Plato. Gorgias. Translated by Donald Zeyl. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1987.