In search of Wisdom...

What I appreciate in Plato’s writings is that he insists that we escape the shackles of our individual assumptions and the perils of received wisdom and groupthink. The restless spirit of inquiry arising from the Greek humanists is the bedrock of western thought and the source of all scientific progress. Philosophy flourishes in an arena where insistent questioning places us in the uncomfortable position where no true and absolute answer exists. There is a distinction to be made between natural philosophy and religion, however, which the text omits to point out. While philosophy and theology both presume to answer the essential questions of human existence, philosophy promotes no fallacy of absolute truth. It does not claim to have the answer from some divine and inviolable source. In fact, the interposition of the supernatural diktat forestalls all contradiction or conversation and thereby, shuts down philosophical inquiry or at least, limits it to certain impassible frontiers. Another factor that can lead to confusion is that many terms are used in both philosophical and religious discourse, and yet refer to quite distinct, or merely analogous, concepts—as in “virtue,” “goodness,” “right” and their counterparts. Religious systems of thought (at least, those into which we are born) tend to reinforce our native assumptions and reassure us about the adequacy of a received world-view. But Plato teaches that philosophy inherently disquiets the mind—creates dissonance, outrage, disjunction—before its benefits can be enjoyed. We want to be the individual who acquires knowledge, but our actions, when actually confronted with a revolutionary worldview, prove what type of individual we are. Do we fight against knowledge that is new (gene modification, cloning)? Imagine for a moment that we lived in the time of Jesus, those of us who are Christian. How would we have reacted to his revolutionary teachings? While it inflates the ego to think that I would not stone him, the Gospels tell us that people voted to release a common thief in his stead. When the civil rights movement was reaching a fever pitch, Martin Luther King was killed. Recently, in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated for her beliefs. Human nature is wildly protective and irrational when cornered. When we cast a vote in November, will we base or decision based upon something shallow like the color of a candidate’s skin? Nearly as deeply rooted are ones political beliefs. I’ve often heard people make comments such as “If Hillary wins, I’ll leave the country.” But what do these candidates stand for? Where do you find their positions? What are your sources; are they reliable? When you watch the nightly news, is it to confirm your opinions or to seek objective information?