Friday, 26 August 2011
-
Socrates on Morality and Loving Your Enemy
"Isn't a moral person a good human?""There is no doubt about that."
"It necessarily follows, Polemarchus, that people who are harmed become less moral."
"So it seems."
"Now, can musicians use music to make people unmusical?"
"Impossible."
"Can skilled horsemen use their skill to make people bad horsemen?"
"No."
"So can moral people use morality to make people immoral? Or in general can good people use their goodness to make people bad?"
"No, that's impossible."
...
"So harming people is not the function of a good person, but of his opposite."
"I suppose so."
"And is a moral person a good person?"
"Of course."
"It is not the job of a moral person, then, Polemarchus, to harm a friend or anyone else, it is the job of his opposite, an immoral person."[1]
What Socrates argues here is a interesting precursor to what Jesus would preach a few centuries later. The dialogue begins with Polemarchus arguing that morality is doing good to those who are your friends and doing harm to evil. The dialogue evolves and Socrates tears apart Polemarchus' arguments through various means including question who is a friend, and whether a insane man could determine what a friend or foe is. The conclusion is clear though:
"“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Matthew 5:43-44 (English Standard Version)
What does it mean to love your enemy? Can it mean harming those who are less moral than you?
[1] 14. Plato. Republic. Oxford University Press: London. 1993.
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: llamalima@xanga
- About Me: Who am I? I am 19 year old university student, prone to stressing over about some assignment due the next day. I sometimes have time to blog mostly about Christian thoughts. In my spare time, I am also a musical connoisseur, ninja, movie junkie, and full-time hypochondriac. I may have lied about one of those, or a few.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 162 Views: 0 143715 Comments: 0 1733 View all posts by llamalima@xanga
Comments (21)
I like most of Socrate's quotes. (Most of the ones I've heard anyways) Jim quotes him often as well. I find that more times than not his philosophy is compatible with Christianity.
To answer the question though.... I find nothing in scripture to sujest that Jesus was telling us we could not use self defense, or defend the weak.
Are you by any chance attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, or Southeastern? We read the original philosophical texts in the Humanities Program at Southwestern--everything from Plato, to Aristotle, to Cicero, to Augustine, to the Bhagavad Gita, to the Teachings of the Compassionate Buhdda, to Confucius, to Jonathan Edwards, to Voltaire, to Newton, to Pascal, to Descarte, to Kant, to Rousseau, to Darwin, to Plantinga, to C.S Lewis, to Bertrand Russel, to Dawkins.
..We read so much good stuff here--the real books, not text books. It's an amazing, rare education.
Anyway, I think Christ was very Socratic in his question-answer mode of teaching. And I agree--Christ's teachings echo Plato's. Especially this: "Happiness is living a virtuous life."
And living a virtuous life is following and loving God.
I always like Socrates and his philosophy. Good post.
@JCCroom@xanga - Read Matt 5:9, Hebrews 10:32-34, 2 Corth 10:3-4, 1 Peter 2:23 plus 3:8-11, and Romans 12:18-19. I too spent many years paying dues to a form of protection only to not use it now NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES. If peace through NON VIOLENCE does not start with you and me, then who will it start with?
Good thoughts,
justmarty
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Haha, no. I am very far away from attending that college both in life and geographically.
I hadn't really put the link between the Socratic Method and Jesus' way of speaking though! That's an interesting point, I doubt Jesus had any knowledge of who Socrates was, but there are definitely similarities in the method of interrogation between the two.
@AMIGOS_WE_THREE@xanga - There was a certain undercurrent to this post relating to non-violence.
@AMIGOS_WE_THREE@xanga - I have them memorized and I'm well aware of the pasivist perversion of what the Christ said.
@JCCroom@xanga - is that after you stated you knew of no scripture to suggest that Jesus was telling us we could not use self defense, or defend the weak?
This is where I have my problems. Sermon on the mound? You must know it right? The largest crowd Jesus ever commanded for a sermon (yes I know that scientifically it would have been impossible for all to have heard him speaking from on top of the hill. He would have had to have been on the bottom speaking up. But this is religion, physics and science does not count) and what did he say in Matthew 5:10? I might have been in my San Soo class enough times and coupled with effecting as many arrests as I did with combative people to take out a lot while still knowing I am only as good as the next guy on the corner, but by not killing you, if that is what is necessary to defend myself, am I then showing mercy? Matt 5:7?
If instead of defending myself or others if I try to make peace through conversation, am I covered through Matt 5:9?
The problem with defending yourself is at what level do you stop? If I refuse to engage in violence and therefore show mercy and am true of heart while seeking righteousness in the name of peace and am killed, what have I inherited? And most important, what have I lost if it is necessary to take another's life? My life here is limited, there is forever. There is no price I would want to pay in Heaven for hurting another. The choice you make is yours but scripture offers us no violence is what is right.....
I have always said you can tell about a man by the scripture he uses to validate his actions and words. Good thoughts.
Love, justmarty
PS. Knowing scripture as you do, don't you find it a little bit strange that Jesus during the Sermon on the Mound did not say squat about having to take him into your heart in order to make it into Heaven? He didn't heal anyone in the crowd. He did not say worship him. He did not say he was going to die for our sins. Also when asked about the 2 most important laws, worshiping him or taking him into our hearts to obtain eternal life was not said...........weird don't you think?
Oh yea, one more strange thing about the mound sermon. How much did he say to put into the offering tray?
@AMIGOS_WE_THREE@xanga -
This is where I have my problems with your gospel: First I much prefer the Christ's, because it's mire relevant to me.Second it's based on your feelings rather than what the Christ actually taught.
Your argument starts off with a dubious premise. The dubious premise is that while the New Testament presents the Gospel as, among other things, release from the slavery of the Mosaic Law, God proscribed a set of "authorized" responses for Christians in every day situations. And that He will consume anyone with fire (as He did Nadab and Abihu) who presumes to employ "unauthorized" responses. In other words, this premise suggests that the New Covenant is nothing more than a new set of laws replacing the Old Covenant Laws. The Pharisees often butted heads with Jesus on this very same criteria. They took the law that God gave to the children of isreal and added their own made up laws to it. They likely did this with the best of intentions mind you, but in the end the Christ sided with the poor and the weak instead.
But as Paul emphatically tells us that Christians are "not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14) and "are released from the law...serv(ing) not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (Romans 7:6).
Paul also writes, "...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16).
Paul called the Mosaic Law "paidagōgus" (Meaning the teacher of boys, and a tutor or guardian of children) The law was meant to lead us to the concept of grace through faith in the Christ Jesus. "but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian" (Galatians 3:23-24).
This was a key doctrine that Paul taught under the inspiration of God. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus brought freedom from the Law as a futile source of salvation. (Romans 8:20-21; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 2:4; 5:1, 13)
I'm not saying (As I'm sure you'll claim) that this freedom is libertine. Instead it is the freedom of a child of God, as opposed to a slave of the Law. There is simply no place in all the New Testament that it's suggested that the Christ came to bring a new set of fruitless regulations to replace the old. If that were the case then the Christ's crucifixion (In which He took on the sins of all humanity) would be meaningless.
And that's where so many people make such a huge mistake in burdening their brothers and sisters with fruitless laws. Remember the lady that gave her only two coins for collection? All the on-lookers thought Jesus was mad when he exclaimed that she gave more than the wealthy donors ahead of her. But what mattered to him was not the amount of money, but what was in the heart.
Paul had strong words for those who taught different doctrines, particularly those who insisted on the "works of the law"
"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing" (1 Timothy 6:3-4).
This is the premise under which an insistence on a host of manmade regulations exists.
Now logical argument states that when a premise is false, conclusions drawn from that premise are also necessarily false, but should you need further refutation of your interpretation of scripture, then I will be glad to delve deeper into exposing the evil in which you speak.
On a final note you speak as though you have a great respect for scripture. I'm forced to ask you, if you really do have the level of respect in which you claim, then why do you mock me for having memorized the NT.
@AMIGOS_WE_THREE@xanga -
Due respect, you spend a lot time on yourself (Even when you bring up scripture, it's in relation to your feelings)" I too spent many years paying dues to a form of protection only to not use"
"This is where I have my problems"
"I might have been in my San Soo class enough times"
"If I refuse to engage in violence and therefore show mercy and am true of heart while seeking righteousness"
"most important, what have I lost if it is necessary to...."
"My life here is limited"
"There is no price I would want to pay"
"I have always said....."
Scripture is NOT about glorifying yourself. Scripture is about God.
And your statement: "But this is religion, physics and science does not count" I have to strongly disagree with. Science and scripture go hand in hand. I could cite many examples to back that up.
@JCCroom@xanga - I would love to hear your thoughts on Matthew 5v.38-41 in relation to the "passivist perversion of what the Christ said".
@Andres897@xanga -
"I" speak in "I" messages because it is how I feel and I make it clear that you have the option to feel how you want. You say with due respect and you post a profile picture like that? You and the parent of that child need to read scripture and understand what love is.
The symbol that child is displaying came into existence because of the old days of bow and arrow fighting. When they captured an archer they would cut off that finger. If an archer escaped he would extend that finger to the enemy. However, as you well know, it has come to stand for the F word which is the abbreviation for, Fornication Under Consent of the King. One of the most vile, destructive and disgusting acts a man can commit on another short of murder. That being said, in reference to your opening sentence, "I" feel you are displaying little respect for anyone including yourself or our father in Heaven. Just ask your minister if you do not believe me.
RYC:Scripture is NOT about glorifying yourself. Scripture is about God. * personal note: Please note the signature at the end of all my replies. "I" know who I am, I am justmarty.* If one is to believe the Bible is about God, then you have missed the most important part of it. It is a love letter to us and an FYI on how to act. Hence when JC said he could not find scripture about condemning violence in regards to self defense and the defense of others, I provided him some, based in love and NON VIOLENCE. . Remember that even if one part of a faith fails, if that faith is written with an accurate description of our father in Heaven's love for us it cannot be wrong. Because that love he has for us is the most important part, the only important part of any religious writing. That is why there is no record of wrongs.
One day, one day soon enough, you will come to know the true meaning of Psalms 23 and then you will know what "Unconditional" love is and realize why love keeps no records of wrongs. In the meantime, "I" will continue to love you with all of my heart. Stop acting like the "Good Son" (?) in the Prodigal Son story and look more at the father and his actions. That my brother is what love does. It opens its doors even though the child did the opposite of what he was told and threw him a party.
You might take down the profile picture, I do not think you are looking for that kind of party when you get home.
Got to run, "I" am taking a church group rafting today after we hand out food to an impoverished group of families that live in an isolated part of the country at the edge of the jungle.
Pura Vida, love,justmarty
@JCCroom@xanga - I started a reply to you last night but had to retire as I have a busy day today. Please know in regards to your last paragraph to me it was not meant as a mocking in anyway, shape or form. Based on your statement there was no tense to it and I truly did not know when you had read and committed the passages to memory. I could not understand how if you had read them before you could conclude that violence is advocated even in self defense or the defense of others. I am sorry for the misunderstanding and look forward to chatting and hearing your opinions/feelings in the future.
Pura Vida,
justmarty
@llamalima@xanga -
Well, I fail to see how MY thoughts on the subject even matter. It's not me that you should want to please, but God. That said, I would offer one particular piece of advice. If you wish to know what the sermon on the mount is about, then please take it in as a whole, rather than just picking out four verses to form a particular doctrine. My teacher has often said that if a whole doctrine is based on just a few isolated verses then it's probably not worth following.In the case of the sermon on the mount, the Christ starts off by turning conventional wisdom on it's head. He says that those who are blessed are the poor, the hungry, and those who mourn. (Luke 6: 20-21) He then goes on to state that those who have cause to be woeful are the rich, well-fed, and the happy. (Luke 6 24-25) We grew up knowing this is what the Christ taught, so it's hard for us to appreciate just how shocking it was for people to hear it for the first time. Many of them thought He must be nuts. Any fool can see that having wealth and worldly favor is what shows you're blessed, not us! But the Christ said we are and we are to share that happyness just as salt flavors our food, (Salt was a soldier's wage in that era btw. Strange isn't it that the Christ did not make a point to remind his followers that they could not be soldiers?) and a lamp lights a room.
Then Yeshua continues on to assure the people that He's not come to destroy the old law or the prophets, but to fulfill. (Matthew 5: 17) The Greek word Matthew uses means to give the law a prophetcies their full meaning. (Reread the above verses from Paul for further explanation.) Given that the Christ had just put the way they saw the world on it's head, there's no doubt that's what was running through their minds. But no! The Christ was assuring them that this was a new way of seeing things. That's why he goes on to list several examples in the old law (One of those examples is the four verses you quoted to me) and the new way of thinking that Yeshua taught that the holy spirit would create within us. There is no place in the sermon where it's suggested that these are a new set of fruitless regulations to replace the old.
Yeshua concludes his remarks by comparing those who take his words to heart to the man who built his house on solid foundations. (Luke 6: 47-48) Yeshua would later drive this point home by describing Himself (NOT THE LAW) as the cornerstone of that foundation.
Even more so than just preaching about it, this new way of thinking was what the Christ lived as well. If you'll remember the Pharisees were often on Yeshua's case for following the spirit of God's law over the man-made laws as they saw them. The Christ would routinely associate with "tax collectors and other sinners," (Matthew 9: 11) defending adulteress', (John 8: 1-11) and healing on the sabbath day. (John 9: 1-41) The Pharisees weren't just making all this stuff up, all of their complaints with the Christ were based on actual passages from old testament scripture.
If you'll permit me, now that I have answered your question, I would like to ask you something. And this is a question that exposes the true evil behind the pacifist leagalistic interpretaion of scripture. If Matthew 5: 39 is truly a fruitless law as the pacifist claims, then does that not demand that a christian woman cornered by a rapist is expected to spread her legs? Also would Matthew 5: 22 not suggest that Yeshua would stand by and do nothing as a step parent drowns his wife's baby in a bucket? Would verse 31 not demand that a battered wife stay with her husband so long as he does not lust after other women? And if all of the above are the case, then how is the new covenent more holy than the old?
Martin Luther King, Jr. Once said: "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." Just a thought.
@AMIGOS_WE_THREE@xanga - I feel I must apologize. Andres most likely found these comments because when I replied to your comment I clicked on that square to "share" that reply with all of my readers. Perhaps that was a bad choice.
To be fair to you, I left out that my teacher has helped me to memorize most of the New Testament and is teaching me Greek. That is what I meant when I said I have those verses memorized. Apology accepted.
I hope you enjoy your activities today, once you have rested you may like to read the comments I made to the other commenter above. They are along the same subject you and I were discussing.
@JCCroom@xanga - I meant your thoughts as in, what is your interpretation--assuredly, it had nothing to do with what you or I are reading into the passage. Anyway, I think you got the geist of what I was saying having given me what your thoughts are.
Thanks for your response though, it is evident that you have thought a lot about these issues. You are correct that picking out one or four verses to base a doctrine on is erroneous and has been repeated throughout history to personal gain.
I am unclear though what exactly is your point--you have given me a framework of the Sermon on the Mount. I agree with everything you have said, but you have addressed the context of the passage but you haven't addressed the content of the passage. How does the turning of the cheek mean for us today? I am unclear how you arrived at the conclusion that "eye for an eye" still holds true today, it seems obvious that Jesus was doing away with this old adage from the OT (well, actually it's not even in the OT, it's a human addition).
RE: Your question. I wouldn't define myself as a pacifistic, I wouldn't define myself as non-violent. Tags have connotations, among which I don't want to be tangled with. Though, if I was to put on my pacifist hat....
The basic foundation of pacifism would be to transfer retribution for sin from man to God. That is, if we would be playing God as you would have it. I don't think that the Gospel is pragmatic in many cases, how practical would it have been to send your begotten Son to die on the cross for you. It seems like a twisting of the Bible to make the Gospel more pragmatic.
By all means, if you were attacked and about to be raped--do all you can to avoid it. But here is the difference between the two: God is sovereign, man is not. I cannot tell what to do in a situation because you are about to be raped--I cannot tell I would ever be in such a position. But I think it is a slanderous view of pacifists to say that they are preaching that you should not avoid being raped.
In other words, defence does not necessarily imply violence.
==
It's interesting that you quote Martin Luther King Jr. He was heavily influenced by especially the non-violent ideas of Gandhi. If we were to use that quote, we would be accepting the lack of violence in the way that MLK revolutionise civil rights in America. You might not want to use that quote in future. How MLK would have applied that quote is evidenced by his lack of violence in stopping the evil of injustices.
Ah, Philosophy:')
@llamalima@xanga -
My choice to quote MLK was deliberate. I might've quoted Ghandi, but there are two problems with that. First: Is the fact that I never know how another Christian will react to being quoted a man many see as burning in Hell.Second: I couldn't be as certain he would not stand by as a woman were raped. MLK believed violence should be avoided, that's true. So do I, to a greater extent than you may realize. But were a woman raped in his presence, or a child drowned in a bucket I would submit that either MLK or the Christ would be quite willing to use force to stop it. (Even if it's only as a last resort.) Remember that the Christ did chase the money changers out of the temple. Are the stakes of murder not higher?
I suspect that the big issue around why you're missing what I'm saying is because you are applying my words to mean: "When someone hits you, you hit them back." That's missing my point as much as the pacifist argument misses MLK's point. There is a big digerence between repaying violence for violence, and using force to prevent an injury. There is a far more subtle difference between use of force when there are other options as opposed to when the only other option is to allow another to be harmed.
It sounds like you're asking me for a particular formula in regards to Matthew 5: 38-41. And I do unsderstand the desire for a formula, I really do. My plan for myself is to go into marine biology, where they perhaps over-use formulas. Having a magic formula that works for every situation would be reassuring. But that's the dubious premise, I was talking about in the previous comment. Christianity is not a formula, but a dynamic. As Albert Einstein said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
If you really must have a formula what I would suggest (And this is from me, NOT from scripture.) Understanding the goal,
Analyzing the situation,
Weighing your options,
Praying over the situation,
Then making the best choice you can. Because in the end there is no way we can make the right choice all the time.
Gandhi's most often repeated qoute is: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Though we cannot be sure he wouldn't stand by as a woman were raped, or a child murdered, Ghandi would certainly concede that if you wish to see a world of no wrongs, using force to stop a wrong would be an acceptable means.
Ghandi wished to see a world where ALL violence was put to an end. That's likely why he applied his beliefs as differently as he did.
@JCCroom@xanga -
"But were a woman raped in his presence, or a child drowned in a bucket I would submit that either MLK or the Christ would be quite willing to use force to stop it."Yes. So would any pacifist. The differences between pacifists and you are not all that much. To be human is to realise that something wrong is happening, and to work within our powers to stop atrocities and injustices. The method is the issue here--pacifists would argue that violence is a not acceptable means.
I wasn't asking for a magic formula for everything, but what you have provided I do agree with. Every situation is different, you can't just say that communication is the best means. Physical restraint may be appropriate in other situations, I cannot tell.
Perhaps I don't know your position so much, I have to admit, I probably have underestimated. It's difficult to know. I don't even know my position--I'm just discussing.
"Ghandi would certainly concede that if you wish to see a world of no wrongs, using force to stop a wrong would be an acceptable means."
I'm not so sure about that. Gandhi would have seen a lot of wrongs in the world, yet I never read of his using any violence. That quote that you stated, what Gandhi was meaning was that by being non-violent, the rest of the world would follow suit. That is, by being moral, the rest of the world would become moral. If you were to act immoral towards others, the world, in turn, would be justified in acting immoral.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that violence may be the quickest form of action, yet I don't see how it may be the best form of action. How Jesus defended the women caught in adultery by the Pharisees was by communication. How Jesus died for the whole world was through submission. There is a lot that we don't know why, and we don't understand--maybe it's just being human and not God.
@llamalima@xanga - Well when I say pacifist I'm referring to those I've spoken to in the past, and the philosophy that the first couple of comments seem to be supporting. If you were talking about a different brand then I'm sorry, I did not know.
Disscussing is fine. It's certainly been an interesting conversation to say the least. And I would think that's why we come to Revelife in the first place.
@JCCroom@xanga - Yup, the term pacifist is about as broad as calling someone a "scientist"--there are many types and forms.
Thanks for the discussion. I must admit I was wrong in assuming a lot about you. That being said, it's been an interesting conversation.
@JCCroom@xanga - I have not forgotten our conversation. After rafting with those kids I decided to make a quick run to the states to say Happy Birthday to my grandma who turned 90. That wore me out more than 3 days of rafting. I got a Mac computer there and then discovered that Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs have a thing going on and will not let your Mac access Hotmail. I had to get a Gmail account and borrow my old laptop I had donated to a local school to get my old address book and retrieve your information as continuing this conversation seems like a worth while endeavor.
I have your site now and as time permits, I would love to continue our conversation.
May good thoughts fill your heart and mind and the hearts and minds of all you come into contact with. Your Brother,justmarty
As usual the Greeks got there first. Another moral statement of Jesus' that was not unique or even new. I wonder if there was anything.