Author Topic: What are we to think of people like Socrates? (Read 1413 times)

Daegus · « **on:** September 28, 2011, 03:39:21 PM »

For those who don't know, Socrates is considered to be the Father of western philosophy. He was a great inspiration and he taught Plato who later went on to teach Aristotle. Aristotle was one of St. Thomas Aquinas' (Angelic Doctor of the Church) greatest influences.

All we know of Socrates is what Plato (his student) wrote of him, as Socrates did not write anything down. Socrates made the statement that "the unexamined life is not worth living" and was a great source of anger for the demagogues of his time. He taught ancient Greek society to examine themselves and the truths of all things before looking to their false gods. He would cause people to question everything they believed by asking a never ending series of questions and would often infuriate them by proving them wrong in this way. This way of teaching is also referred to as the Socratic method. Near the end of his life he was brought fourth and tried (unfairly) by his contemporary demagogues. They found him guilty of impiety, corrupting the youth of Athens and teaching false doctrines. As a punishment, they forced him to drink Hemlock (a poison) which killed him.

What's particularly interesting about how he died is that he could have completely avoided it, but he did not. Instead, he implied (I'm not sure if he claimed this) that he would rather die than give up his search for the truth. He had always said that he knew nothing and said that others were far more knowledgeable than he.

Judging by appearances, it would seem as though Socrates had vastly superior wisdom to the people of his time and that he was sincerely interested in the truth. Given that he lived in a pagan society and was not thus exposed to Judaism in any way, what do you think happened to him? Do you think he would have accepted the true Faith had it been presented to him? What do you think of others like him, which we may or may not know about?

I'm not sure of what to think about this. I wouldn't be surprised if Socrates believed in multiple gods as was the custom, but all of what he taught was leading him against that. But was he obstinate in this? I think this is a very interesting topic and I am curious to see how this is answered.

Vladimir · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2011, 12:36:36 AM »

Providence ordained that certain men live and die outside the Church and, prior to Christ, outside Israel that the pagans of yesterday and today have no excuse for denying God when their own philosophers point directly to him.

More Catholic in spirit than Socrates, seemingly at least, is Seneca. Seneca was also forced to commit ѕυιcιdє.

Confucius is another one of those.

Ancient China was filled with people that knew the vanity of this life, but they committed ѕυιcιdє, etc because they didn't have the light of divine grace.

This quote from the Analects of Confucius is remarkable in its clarity and applies very much to the course of action traditional Catholics should take while the crisis rages on...

Quote

Late addiscere et serio velle, practica consulere et proxima rimari, vera virtus invenitur inter haec.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2011, 02:40:30 AM »

The way I see it is, Jesus ( God ) came down to die on the Cross at the time He knew would be the most fruitful.

If His death could have saved more people three centuries earlier, He would have come three centuries earlier. But He didn't. He came when the time was ripe.

There are lots of people, even today, who APPEAR to be genuinely seeking the truth, and never finding it. Think of Kierkegaard -- a genius, with a brain like a Ferrari, and he never found the Catholic Church. He was probably my favorite writer when I was "searching." Just an incredibly stylish and intriguing writer. So who is to say Socrates, for all his great genius, would have accepted Christ? I'd say Kierkegaard came far, far closer to the truth ( he was a Protestant ); but he never got there, from what we can see humanly, anyway.

I won't venture any further than that. The ideas of invincible ignorance and implicit faith for the pagans BEFORE Christ is a little too touchy for me, a little too much of a terra incognita. What I'm trying to say is that human genius does not necessarily presuppose an open heart that is willing to accept God; in fact, it can stand in the way of accepting God, because it can lead to a worship of self, even one that masks itself as humility.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2011, 02:50:00 AM »

For every St. Paul, there's a Nietzsche. But St. Paul is one of those who I would say was a "genius." Augustine was another. St. Alphonsus, whose talents at first were used in the profession of the law, was another -- a major genius. They are not like St. Stanislaus Kostka, remarkable for his purity, or a St. Therese of Lisieux, remarkable for her humility. They are remarkable for their brains and their zeal. They were instrumental in both spreading and preserving the faith; that is why God needs men like this.

When God converts one of these men, it's a very big deal. But they are harder to convert. The more intelligence you have, the more you can fall prey to intellectual pride; just look at college campuses across the world, full of blind eggheads. Look at all these philosophers who, as predicted by St. Paul, are always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Who knows why God chooses who He does; it gives me the chills to think about, I don't know ANY pure atheists who found sedevacantism like I did. I should be on my way to hell. There is no reason why I am where I am, at least not that I can see. And still I'm failing miserably, an ingrate.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:56:02 AM »

If it was not for the Monks, and Nuns during the Dark, and Middle ages
preserving the memory of Socrates, and other Roman, and Greek
Philosophers in hand writing their manuscripts from older
manuscripts, we probably would have never known of their
existence today.
It was the Roman Catholic Church that preserved their works
through in difficult, and impossible times so they can be debated
today.

Graham · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2011, 10:52:04 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

I'm not sure of what to think about this. I wouldn't be surprised if Socrates believed in multiple gods as was the custom, but all of what he taught was leading him against that. But was he obstinate in this? I think this is a very interesting topic and I am curious to see how this is answered.

He was executed in part for undermining the traditional polytheism of Athens. His students Plato and Aristotle and their own students were metaphysical monotheists, which I think should be attributed in part to the influence of Socrates and in part to the older mystery traditions stemming from Orpheus and Pythagoras. After the Incarnation many Hellenists, claiming intellectual descent from Plato (and he from Socrates), were stubborn opponents of Christianity and proponents of the old ways – we can name the Roman Emperor Julian, for example, as well as some of the best-known neoplatonists like Iamblichus and Proclus; the Byzantine Emperor Justinian even forcibly shut down Plato’s Academy in the 6th C. AD due to its paganizing influence. Then again, we have it from St. Augustine that the most learned Platonist of his time in Rome was converted, and we know how great a debt our theology owes to its close relation Hellenic philosophy. If we transpose the attitudes of Socrates’ intellectual descendents onto Socrates there is some support for thinking he would have become Christian and some support for thinking he wouldn’t have. This method is very tenuous, of course, and it isn’t the only way of exploring this issue – one could also go by intuition, whereby some have seen Socrates as a Greek John the Baptist, a 'voice crying out in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord'.

Ethelred · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2011, 01:17:46 PM »

Daegus, have you already read the interesting Eleison Comments 203 (4 June 2011) named:
Reading Pagans

I found Bishop Williamson's words to be very eye-opening. The EC is not about Socrates in particular, but about the ancient Greeks in general. Still that EC and this topic here dovetail nicely, I think.

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:38:25 PM »

Quote

Late addiscere et serio velle, practica consulere et proxima rimari, vera virtus invenitur inter haec.

Would you mind giving a translation for those of us not fluent in Latin?

Vladimir · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:42:55 PM »

Quote from: lefebvre_fan

Quote
Late addiscere et serio velle, practica consulere et proxima rimari, vera virtus invenitur inter haec.

Would you mind giving a translation for those of us not fluent in Latin?

Classical Chinese does not translate well into English, but this is an acceptable translation, although it may be hard to see its relevance to traditional Catholicism (the way it is translated):

Quote

Tsze-hsia said, "There are learning extensively, and having a firm and sincere aim; inquiring with earnestness, and reflecting with self-application:-virtue is in such a course."

Here is a picture of the original: