Quality Apologetic Interaction
Posted by dlw in Uncategorized at 8:57 pm | 
Permanent Link
Steve Andresen and I have had some good apologetic exchanges at this blog. He wrote a very thoughtful reply to a post of mine a while back and I thought I’d repost it here and reply.
These exchanges are three of the best in your last post. First:
Steve: “My claim is that the basis of this Allegory is the view that knowledge and values are matters of logical argument.” Dlw: “And my claim is that that statement is bunk. It simply does not follow.” Second, you started out saying the following:
Dlw: “…Xty provides a better picture of what ultimate reality is like and that this bears some similarity to Socrates’ allegory. But I don’t see this as justifying lording it over others, as in the use of force. We can’t claim that we are more enlightened or superior for following Jesus.” And third, you said:
Dlw: “I think part of the problem here is I don’t really get what it would mean for our lives to be unlike that of a cave?”
These summarize for me much of your resistance to my argument. First, the Allegory did not seem to follow from what I have been saying about knowledge and values being matters of logical argument. The account of knowledge and value as matters of logic does not seem to support the Allegory as the conclusion of an argument. Second, it seems that even if Christianity resembled the Allegory of the cave, it was a true picture of reality nonetheless, and furthermore, it need not have the dire consequences that I have been trying to pin on it. In particular, even if Socrates pushed force, you don’t think Christianity or the words of Jesus need do the same to get people to “go toward the light,” so to speak. And third, you have been unclear what life would be like without the Allegory. If our lives are not like those of the cave dwellers, you want to know how are we to understand them.
In order to address these points, I will try to summarize my argument.
1. According to Socrates, where I attribute to him what he argues, not just what he says, the meaning or purpose of life is to survive.
2. Force and its allies violence, stealth, and deceit, are more effective tools than words for assuring survival.
3. Survival through the use of force will require the destruction of words.
4. Commitment to the Socratic account of knowledge and value as matters of logical argument will destroy words. It will make knowledge and values impossible, argumentation futile, words as terms in logical arguments meaningless, and life so understood not worth living. It will also do what we can to kill God.
5. Survival through force that destroys words, and so forth, will not be accepted unless people are given a compelling excuse for doing so.
6. Instead of challenging the powers-that-be for intimidating us into adopting the Socratic view of knowledge and values, we are asked to believe that what we call knowledge and values are really mere opinions and prejudices because our experiences are based on illusions, whereas those who really have knowledge and values base their experiences on real things. In other words, since we don’t want to admit that we have been intimidated into destroying words, killing God, and making a mess of everything, we adopt this excuse about how we are really doing no such thing.
7. Therefore, Socratics tell themselves that the Allegory of the Cave, and similar metaphors, must be accurate accounts of reality.
The main issue for Socrates and his nemesis is to identify and advocate for the proper means and ends of life. The Allegory is not Socrates’ main claim on this issue. His main claim is that the end or purpose of life is survival. He pushes the idea that force and its allies are the only way one can be assured of fulfilling the end or purpose of one’s life. The Allegory is not the conclusion of an argument for which the account of knowledge and value as matters of logical argument could be its support. The Allegory actually presupposes the Socratic account involving logic. It presupposes it in that the nature of logical argument explains how the Allegory works.
The fact is, the terms of logical arguments have no meaning except what the person who makes them gives to them. They are like smooth stones, to borrow a phrase. They have a meaning, for the purposes of the Allegory, determined by the context in which the argument is put in by its creator. The Allegory supposes there is one context in which the terms of logical arguments are related to the objects we experience in our life. As the Allegory tells us we live in a cave where we only experience shadows and echoes, the terms of our arguments reflect a life of illusions and falseness. As there is one context, there could be many. So, the Allegory contrasts that context with another context where people see how the shadows and echoes of our lives in the cave are produced by having objects carried before the illuminating fires. The Allegory provides in this story a way of contrasting our lives of opinions and prejudices with the lives of those who have real knowledge and values.
The Socratic account of knowledge and values cannot support the Allegory as the conclusion of an argument. The Allegory is an implication that Socrates drew out of his account of knowledge and value. His account of how we are to understand knowledge and values does not make the Allegory any truer.
In fact, I contend that if the Socratic account of knowledge and values as matters of logic were true, then nothing like the allegory of the cave could save us. The Socratic hero is unable to save us. The Hero is in no position to save anyone because what we need is a good argument that everyone can buy into, and the hero as a creature of the Socratic argument that makes arguments futile and words meaningless, is unable to give anyone such an argument.
Instead of being the conclusion of any argument, the Allegory supports the Socratic account of knowledge and values as being matters of logic. The Allegory argues that we should adopt the Socratic position despite its terrible consequences, because if it were true, then we’d benefit from some really attractive stuff going on. The Allegory tells us what kind of inducements Socrates offers us for accepting his position. If we just go along with his argument, he promises us that a really powerful being would give us life after death and intervene in this life on behalf of our loved ones.
We are further inclined to accept this excuse that is the Allegory because we don’t want to admit that we have been intimidated into anything.
And so, I contend the Allegory follows from my claim that knowledge and values are matters of logical argument. But, it follows in the sense that being unmarried follows from being a bachelor. The Allegory really functions as a bribe. We all understand that Socrates is asking us to give in to extortion, the Allegory just tells us, to save face, we can think of ourselves differently in the process.
You claim that the Allegory does not justify using force or the lording it over anyone. I’m saying if you get to the point where you think the Allegory is an accurate account of reality, or you are relying on a character in the story to save you from real calamities, then you are already committed to the claim that swords are more powerful than words and it would be irrational to consider anything but what the powers-that-be prefer. If you believe that Jesus the Socratic Hero will save you, then you already are committed to the claim that violence, stealth, and deceit are the only ways of survival and dealing with people.
This is why it seems so odd to me for dlw to claim that Christians are not more enlightened or superior for following Jesus. I’ve thought the whole point of being a follower of the Socratic hero is to have access to the knowledge and values that are supposedly available to his followers. What’s more, a central Socratic text tells us:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Christian followers get to go to heaven, while non-believers do not. I believe that when we are concerned about real questions, like how do we rescue tortured children, and we are told to rely on a Socratic Hero we are having a red herring, a smelly fish, dragged before us to divert our attention from the course of the argument. Any account of the means and ends of life should address questions like what to do about suffering and tell us what we can do. We should not accept being told that we can do nothing, because we have no knowledge or values, but leave it up to others, and particularly leave it up to a character on a flying chariot.
You asked what our lives would be like if they were not like the cave dwellers. That’s a good question.
You know I believe Jesus was originally understood as an anti-Socratic whose message was corrupted over time, so he is now understood as the Socratic hero. Bad things sometimes happen to good people. However, this is how I think it goes. The whole business about the Christ and the anti-Christ is about the philosophical dispute about the proper means and ends of life. It is the anti-Christ who advocates the Socratic position that swords are more powerful than words and that the purpose of life is to survive. It is the Christ’s job to advocate for words and the efficacy of argument to resolve conflict without force. Whereas Socrates argues that it would be irrational to consider controversies or the views of anyone besides those of the powers-that-be, those who fill the shoes of Gyges in the “myth of Gyges,” I contend Jesus as originally understood argued instead that one must love and respect the arguments of others, even those who may be your enemies, as you would have them love and respect your own arguments. You are to do this not because anyone tells you to, but because they may be right. Whatever view is right would be a question of what the evidence and the arguments would show.
It is in our choosing the best position in this dispute between the Christ and the Anti-Christ over what you do with others that Jesus was referring to as the beginnings. If we take care of the beginnings, then our endings will take care of themselves. If we commit ourselves to what has been considered the golden rule, then we leave open the path to creating God’s kingdom on earth. Such a place would be where conflicts are resolved by argument and not the use of force. If you commit yourself to the Socratic position where the goal of survival justifies the use of force, then, according to the apocalyptic argument, as Socratics are blind and a danger to themselves and others, we should expect the violent self-destruction of everything.
The phrase, “war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness,” is about the difference between being committed to Socrates as a son of darkness, and being committed to my character, the Teacher of Righteousness, as a son of light. The Socratics cannot see where the righteous can.
Steve
I will now try to respond.
thanks for the post Steve! I’m sorry I’ve taken so long to respond myself.
Let me first look at your characterization of my argument.
First, yes, I do not believe that all aspects of allegory of the cave follow from the view that knowledge and values are matters of logical argument. I think that special revelation and experience are of far greater importance in this regard. Second, I do not see the fact that the Allegory of the Cave shares aspects of imagery found in Judaism and Christianity to invalidate the latter, just because Plato/Socrates’ guess at what’s really going on was and is ultimately wrong. Third, I don’t think one can get around the fact that we see but in part and use fallible frames/ideological short-cuts to deal with a complex reality.
Now, let’s look at your argument. I am not an expert on Socrates and so I cannot deny or affirm your interpretation of him and his parable. If you could cite others who also interpret Socrates like you do it would help me some perhaps. It sounds somewhat like a reaction to a Nietschean understanding of the allegory.
You wrote: Instead of challenging the powers-that-be for intimidating us into adopting the Socratic view of knowledge and values, we are asked to believe that what we call knowledge and values are really mere opinions and prejudices because our experiences are based on illusions, whereas those who really have knowledge and values base their experiences on real things. In other words, since we don’t want to admit that we have been intimidated into destroying words, killing God, and making a mess of everything, we adopt this excuse about how we are really doing no such thing.
Okay, this sounds like a criticism of how Kantian or Hegelian idealism is used in practice. I have little doubt that we are often driven by habits/prejudices and that what we believe colors heavily how we perceive a situation. I think the issue is whether or not those who have been proven to be better at matters of logical analysis truly base their experience and actions on real things.
You wrote: Socratics tell themselves that the Allegory of the Cave, and similar metaphors, must be accurate accounts of reality.
I think the key aspect of the Allegory has to do with the process of discernment of whether someone or group is progressing toward the light or regressing back into darkness. Is this discernment a matter of logical analysis or are logical systems more like tools for reflections on and communication about revelations received and experiences shared?
You also wrote: The Allegory actually presupposes the Socratic account involving logic. It presupposes it in that the nature of logical argument explains how the Allegory works.
I don’t see why the use of logical argument in the telling of the Allegory of the cave implies that it insists that discernment is simply a matter of the use of logic. I agree that the meaning of logical arguments are contextual. I think your argument that follows mainly states that the presupposition that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the allegory and our reality is a form of manipulation and control.
The rest seems to add presupposition to presupposition. It would help your case if you cited more others who also understand the Socratic parable and teachings like you do.
I contend the Allegory follows from my claim that knowledge and values are matters of logical argument. But, it follows in the sense that being unmarried follows from being a bachelor. The Allegory really functions as a bribe. We all understand that Socrates is asking us to give in to extortion, the Allegory just tells us, to save face, we can think of ourselves differently in the process.
Let me restate this in my own words. If Socrates is claiming that he has been outside and stared at the Sun, like others(perhaps Pythagoras) have, then it would seem to follow logically that following him would generally be the way out from our bondages and since we’d be taking baby-steps, of course, it would help us to live with our situations… It helps us to be better batteries to believe that a Neo might help us overcome our batteryhood.
You claim I claim that the Allegory does not justify using force or the lording it over anyone. I’d say that not all aspects of the Allegory justify the use of force to lord it over people. I never claimed that Socrates’ allegory is a completely accurate account of reality. I think that the fact we are ultimately dependent on the revelations made by the incarnation of God in human form in Jesus and his atonement for our sins to save us from the grip of sin on our lives does not by any means claim that swords are more powerful than words. I believe it shows how self-sacrificial acts are more more powerful than words and swords. Jesus is not the Socratic Hero, and it is only because of the Constantinization of Christianity that folks can get away with associating him with violence, stealth, and deceit.
You wonder why I don’t believe Christians are more enlightened or superior for following Jesus. I’ve thought the whole point of being a follower of the Socratic hero is to have access to the knowledge and values that are supposedly available to his followers. What you miss is that knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was and what he did does not save one. It is affirmation of this truth. The truth is out there. Like the pearl of great value, if folks care to dig it up and sell everything they own to buy the field that contains it, it will be there, but it’s the action of affirmation or belief that matters more than knowledge. You describe,“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” as a socratic text, but belief is not knowledge.
You wrote:Christian followers get to go to heaven, while non-believers do not. I believe that when we are concerned about real questions, like how do we rescue tortured children, and we are told to rely on a Socratic Hero we are having a red herring, a smelly fish, dragged before us to divert our attention from the course of the argument. Any account of the means and ends of life should address questions like what to do about suffering and tell us what we can do. We should not accept being told that we can do nothing, because we have no knowledge or values, but leave it up to others, and particularly leave it up to a character on a flying chariot.
Well, I don’t think Christianity says all non-Christians will be eternally separated from God. I also don’t think it tells us not to be concerned about the suffering of others and its prevention. I don’t think it tells us what we ought to do in every context, but that such is learnable through experience and reason.
It is true that some Christians use their faith as a psychic balm and believe that God is in control and choose not to act on behalf of others because they might be wrong or maybe make things worse with unintended consequences of their actions. But just because we see through dimly as through a mirror what ought to be done does not mean we should not act. We do have free will in that regard and the ambiguities are often overstated and overemphasized by some who benefit from the status quo…
I asked you what our lives would be like if they were not like the cave dwellers. You wrote…
The whole business about the Christ and the anti-Christ is about the philosophical dispute about the proper means and ends of life. It is the anti-Christ who advocates the Socratic position that swords are more powerful than words and that the purpose of life is to survive. It is the Christ’s job to advocate for words and the efficacy of argument to resolve conflict without force.
That sounds rather manicheistic…;) I think the followers of Christ are to discipline themselves and others in not-so-hierarchical communities to help overcome evil with good with acts of self-sacrificial love on the behalf of others, including acts that alter the manner in which the state wields its authority. In order for conflicts to be resolved by argument and not the use of force, we must become more committed to love our neighbors with whom we inevitably will come into conflicts with.
I hope that helps, blessings!
dlw
The 24th of July, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Hi,
Please explain to me what you are thinking when you talk about “special revelation” and “experience” as you did at the beginning of your response. I have a number of thoughts, but I was immediately curious about that.
I am wondering whether both of these are explained in terms of the Allegory and so could not be the source of any competition.
thanks.
The 24th of July, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Okay, you refer back to this paragraph…
I spoke of knowledge and values as not being so much a matter of logical argument but rather building on special revelation and past and present experiences.
A special revelation is something that is revealed by God to some but not all people, with the intent that all should receive it and embody it in their lives. An example of this would be the Creation account in Genesis that describes the sun, moon and stars as created objects, not gods. It’s pretty hard to disprove the gods-hypothesis(not unlike Intelligent Design, as the form of Design is too slippery) and so it must be ruled out at front and regularities presumed before scientific inquiry can proceed. This special revelation was given to the ancient Hebrews in the form of their creation account. It came to the Greeks through the first philosopher, Thales, who probably adapted it from what he had learned during his travels(albeit not likely from high Egyptian culture as some claimed).
Scientific inquiry is a means of communally deliberating on experiences so that the explanation(s) predestined to best explain the available evidence prevails. Logic is a tool used in inquiry and communication, it is not what advances knowledge per se.
Likewise our cultural values are both received from the past and altered somewhat in light of our experiences. Among the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers, they reacted against past perfectionism and notions of complete self denial to point out that the pursuit of one’s private self interest can be channelled in ways that also serve the public good in the form of wealth creation. Since then we’ve come to better appreciate the need for regulations of commercial activity due to problems with the impact of poverty on labor markets, the ways we can harm our environment and the need for public provision of key infrastructure and forms of social insurance, including healthcare.
These all reflect how experience has modified our cultural values. It was not logical argument that made us develop in our understandings, but logical arguments were a critical part of how we processed our experiences.
In the context of the cave allegory, the initial breaking of the chains reflects the coming of special revelation, experience deals with the discernment process of whether groups of former prisoners are progressing towards the light or backsliding back into darkness. There is disorientation in both actions and so discernment and some guidance is needed. The issue is whose guidance shd we seek?
dlw
The 25th of July, 2006 at 5:25 am
I asked you to explain what you were thinking talking about “special revelation” and “experience.” I asked you this because I suspected you would explain them as ideas that could only follow from the Allegory. Your answer above only confirms this suspicion to me.
You said that “…A special revelation is something that is revealed by God to some but not all people, with the intent that all should receive it and embody it in their lives…”
In contrast, you said, “experience” is something that we “communally deliberate” about. You said that “experience” modifies our “cultural values.” You don’t really explain what you mean by “experience.” We “deliberate” about it and somehow it modifies values in some way. I could suppose you think “experience” has something to do with brain processes. Many people do. But, I think it’s more likely that you mean something like “experience has to do with our relationship to the world. It’s how we learn about the things and events that we find in our homes, neighborhoods, the countryside, and other parts of the world around us.”
You said in your previous post, “I agree that the meaning of logical arguments are contextual.” It is with this thought in mind that your understanding of “special revelation” and “experience” should be seen. On my view, the allegory is an attempt to make logical arguments explain the fact that we have knowledge and values in our lives, despite the fact that both are impossible if they are matters of logical argument. The terms of logical arguments have no meaning, but we suppose that they do have meaning in context. So, if the argument involves the term “dog,” for example, the meaning of that term would be some object in the context of that argument that we would reasonably call a “dog.” I am relying here on what’s been called the “correspondence theory” of meaning. There may be other such theories, but they all, on my view, presuppose the claim that as language speakers we are wanting to relate the terms of a logical argument with some object in its context.
An “experience” is just our seeing or hearing or otherwise finding out about our world and the context of our logical arguments.
The problem with our experience on this view is that it is radically personal. Whatever we find out about the world is unique to us alone. The meaning of the terms in our logical argument about a “dog” is given meaning by whatever we got to see or hear, etc. about whatever object it was in our context which we designated a “dog.” One might go on to say that people in our own culture have our point of view. But, we do not extend our point of view easily. The problem usually with this way of thinking about how we relate to the world is that it is “relativistic.” That is, it is usually about the person who has the experience and each person has his own assessments and values based upon them.
When you spoke about “special revelation” as what God gives us it becomes something we contrast with experience. You are impressed with “special revelation” because it provides truth and values whereas “experience” provides opinion and prejudice. The Allegory tells us that as cave dwellers who only experience the falsities of the shadows can be saved from their delusions by being given information about the truth of their situation from who I call the Socratic Hero. The Allegory suggests that there is knowledge and values. They are possible and accessible to us through God or the Socratic Hero who comes back to the cave to tell us about how the cave is set up.
You provided an example of the Allegory being used to explain our lives when you brought up the example of the book of Genesis. You described that story as the “…Creation account in Genesis that describes the sun, moon and stars as created objects, not gods.” The reason we should give this story any credibility, on your account, is not that it makes any sense, or has support for it as opposed to its alternatives, but because it was a “special revelation.” That is, I presume, you believe God gave this insight into creation to the Hebrews.
I’m saying this way of understanding the book of Genesis is based on one’s acceptance of the Allegory of the Cave. There is no other basis for your understanding of “special revelation” and “experience.”
I say that there is no other explanation for your notions of “special revelation” and “experience” than the Allegory. On my account, there is only one other account of knowledge and value and that account does not lead to your understanding of God, Jesus, or salvation.
Part of the strength of my argument against the Socratic account of knowledge and value comes from being able to show that your understanding of “experience” and “special revelation” depends on the Socratic claim that knowledge and values are matters of logical argument. That is, they are not matters of both rhetorical and logical arguments, but matters of only logical arguments. I’ve tried to show that there is no issue about how we can get knowledge from experience or from some kind of revelation of a mystery apart from our acceptance of the Allegory and the claim that our lives are like those of the cave dwellers.
My strategy against Socrates is like one’s strategy to keep the President from invading Iraq. The President says we should invade Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. One would think that we should invade Iraq because if they have such weapons they would be a danger to the rest of us. The argument against invading Iraq would be to point out that the Iraqis did not then have any weapons of mass destruction and hence do not pose a threat to us or anyone else. Because of the truth of my claim that there are no WMD’s in Iraq, we should give up any plans we might have to invade them.
Against Socrates I am pointing out that Christians say Jesus is telling us the truth about things, and giving us information about values, instead of just prejudices based on illusions, and that Christians say this because they accept the claim that knowledge and values are based on logical arguments. I have tried to show that their understanding of Jesus, experience, and special revelation, all follow from having accepted the claim that Socrates makes about how we should understand knowledge and values. My argument against this Christian position is to argue against the Socratic account of knowledge and values. I’m saying, for one thing, it is not true that knowledge and values are matters of logical arguments. Understood in the way that Socrates claims, both are impossible. As I claim the Socratic claim holds no water, like the effort to have us invade Iraq, we should also give up on Christianity.
As for another short question: Why does it matter what philosopher’s argument mine most closely resembles? You asked me to suggest a philosopher so that you could better understand me. What if my argument does not resemble any other philosopher’s argument? Does that make my argument any less credible? I don’t think so. In fact, I think I am restating the argument of the Teacher of Righteousness who is the nemesis of Socrates, his only serious rival. The fact you have not heard of such an argument before does not mean there is no such argument.
If you don’t understand my argument ask me something about it, don’t expect to be able to go to some other philosopher and ask them to explain it to you.
The 25th of July, 2006 at 1:55 pm
S:I asked you to explain what you were thinking talking about “special revelation” and “experience.” I asked you this because I suspected you would explain them as ideas that could only follow from the Allegory. Your answer above only confirms this suspicion to me.
Dlw: I related the ideas to the Allegory, that doesn’t mean they could only follow from the Allegory….
S:You said that “…A special revelation is something that is revealed by God to some but not all people, with the intent that all should receive it and embody it in their lives…”
In contrast, you said, “experience” is something that we “communally deliberate” about. You said that “experience” modifies our “cultural values.” You don’t really explain what you mean by “experience.” We “deliberate” about it and somehow it modifies values in some way. I could suppose you think “experience” has something to do with brain processes. Many people do. But, I think it’s more likely that you mean something like “experience has to do with our relationship to the world. It’s how we learn about the things and events that we find in our homes, neighborhoods, the countryside, and other parts of the world around us.”
Dlw: Experience transcends the mind-matter dichotomy. It’s about how we process our relationships and the effects of our actions in order to learn from them, share them with others, and be more intentional in how we act in the future.
S: You said in your previous post, “I agree that the meaning of logical arguments are contextual.” It is with this thought in mind that your understanding of “special revelation” and “experience” should be seen. On my view, the allegory is an attempt to make logical arguments explain the fact that we have knowledge and values in our lives, despite the fact that both are impossible if they are matters of logical argument.
Dlw: The allegory uses logical arguments to present a story of how we have knowledge and values in our lives. The logical arguments are part of the story-telling, they do not make the story true or valid for our lives.
S: The terms of logical arguments have no meaning, but we suppose that they do have meaning in context. So, if the argument involves the term “dog,” for example, the meaning of that term would be some object in the context of that argument that we would reasonably call a “dog.” I am relying here on what’s been called the “correspondence theory” of meaning. There may be other such theories, but they all, on my view, presuppose the claim that as language speakers we are wanting to relate the terms of a logical argument with some object in its context.
An “experience” is just our seeing or hearing or otherwise finding out about our world and the context of our logical arguments.
Dlw: Okay, so you’re arguing for a one-to-one correspondence between words and objects and I’m arguing that that doesn’t necessarily fly, but doesn’t subvert the importance of words either.
S: The problem with our experience on this view is that it is radically personal. Whatever we find out about the world is unique to us alone. The meaning of the terms in our logical argument about a “dog” is given meaning by whatever we got to see or hear, etc. about whatever object it was in our context which we designated a “dog.” One might go on to say that people in our own culture have our point of view. But, we do not extend our point of view easily. The problem usually with this way of thinking about how we relate to the world is that it is “relativistic.” That is, it is usually about the person who has the experience and each person has his own assessments and values based upon them.
Dlw: Hmm, yes an emph on experience might lead to subjectivism, but I would argue that interpretive communities are usually more important.
S: When you spoke about “special revelation” as what God gives us it becomes something we contrast with experience.
Dlw: It becomes the frames that we can interpret and share about our experiences within.
S: You are impressed with “special revelation” because it provides truth and values whereas “experience” provides opinion and prejudice. The Allegory
Dlw: I wouldn’t go that far…, but I would say that the problem of the hermeneutical circle makes attempts to ground all truth on natural revelation somewhat futile, it tends to lead eventually to the post-modern malaise.
S:[the allegory] tells us that as cave dwellers who only experience the falsities of the shadows can be saved from their delusions by being given information about the truth of their situation from who I call the Socratic Hero. The Allegory suggests that there is knowledge and values. They are possible and accessible to us through God or the Socratic Hero who comes back to the cave to tell us about how the cave is set up.
Dlw: It is only through God and God’s servants that we are capable of overcoming the bondages that have made us slaves/human batteries in the past. However, the Socratic hero claims he has been to the mountaintop and even stared at the sun and then rationalizes away his confusion as a result of the natural consequences of going back into the cave, but he still is the one that must be followed.
Only problem with that is that Plato’s academy didn’t last very long and Neo-Platonism didn’t get revived until mid 2nd Ctry CE, often as a more elitist pagan alternative to Christianity (as is illustrated by Iamblichus’s “The Life of Pythagoras”. )
S: You provided an example of the Allegory being used to explain our lives when you brought up the example of the book of Genesis. You described that story as the “…Creation account in Genesis that describes the sun, moon and stars as created objects, not gods.” The reason we should give this story any credibility, on your account, is not that it makes any sense, or has support for it as opposed to its alternatives, but because it was a “special revelation.” That is, I presume, you believe God gave this insight into creation to the Hebrews.
Dlw: Well, I said that reason by itself does not distinguish between this account of reality relative to its alternatives, now reason applied to presuppositions that we have inherited from the past do make the account preferable to ones where all material existence is ultimately spiritual or consists of gods whose actions predominate over our lives. Now, obviously, the meaning of the story is in its contrast with the alternative Cosmogonies that existed back then. However, it still is “special revelation” and its value is intertwined with a commitment to the God of the Hebrews that revealed it…
S:I’m saying this way of understanding the book of Genesis is based on one’s acceptance of the Allegory of the Cave. There is no other basis for your understanding of “special revelation” and “experience.”
Dlw: Okay, yes, implicit here is an acceptance of authority and belief that our ability to “progress” depends on how we deliberate on the revelations made by that authority and our experiences. But the authority embedded in the Pentateuch is likely quite older than that of Socrates or Plato…
S: I say that there is no other explanation for your notions of “special revelation” and “experience” than the Allegory. On my account, there is only one other account of knowledge and value and that account does not lead to your understanding of God, Jesus, or salvation.
Part of the strength of my argument against the Socratic account of knowledge and value comes from being able to show that your understanding of “experience” and “special revelation” depends on the Socratic claim that knowledge and values are matters of logical argument. That is, they are not matters of both rhetorical and logical arguments, but matters of only logical arguments. I’ve tried to show that there is no issue about how we can get knowledge from experience or from some kind of revelation of a mystery apart from our acceptance of the Allegory and the claim that our lives are like those of the cave dwellers.
My strategy against Socrates is like one’s strategy to keep the President from invading Iraq. The President says we should invade Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. One would think that we should invade Iraq because if they have such weapons they would be a danger to the rest of us. The argument against invading Iraq would be to point out that the Iraqis did not then have any weapons of mass destruction and hence do not pose a threat to us or anyone else. Because of the truth of my claim that there are no WMD’s in Iraq, we should give up any plans we might have to invade them.
Against Socrates I am pointing out that Christians say Jesus is telling us the truth about things, and giving us information about values, instead of just prejudices based on illusions, and that Christians say this because they accept the claim that knowledge and values are based on logical arguments. I have tried to show that their understanding of Jesus, experience, and special revelation, all follow from having accepted the claim that Socrates makes about how we should understand knowledge and values. My argument against this Christian position is to argue against the Socratic account of knowledge and values. I’m saying, for one thing, it is not true that knowledge and values are matters of logical arguments. Understood in the way that Socrates claims, both are impossible. As I claim the Socratic claim holds no water, like the effort to have us invade Iraq, we should also give up on Christianity.
Dlw: I’m sorry but this is repetitive. I think you’re giving far too much attention to the parable of the cave.
S: As for another short question: Why does it matter what philosopher’s argument mine most closely resembles? You asked me to suggest a philosopher so that you could better understand me. What if my argument does not resemble any other philosopher’s argument? Does that make my argument any less credible? I don’t think so. In fact, I think I am restating the argument of the Teacher of Righteousness who is the nemesis of Socrates, his only serious rival. The fact you have not heard of such an argument before does not mean there is no such argument.
Dlw: If words convey meanings then we should expect others who have also studied a text extensively to understand it similarly to us. We typically stand on the shoulders of giants and it behooves us to know more about these giants and what the other options might be, rather than presuming that we, unlike all others, have gotten the understanding of the text right…
S: If you don’t understand my argument ask me something about it, don’t expect to be able to go to some other philosopher and ask them to explain it to you.
Dlw: No offense, but you and I are both dilettantes when it comes to philosophy and theology and so it matters that we be open about how we have developed our ideas. I learned a good deal as a graduate student in Economics who studied the History of Economic Thought and was exposed to the ideas of Pragmaticism associated with Charles S Peirce.
dlw
The 26th of July, 2006 at 5:20 am
We began with your discussion of whether Christian doctrine was falsifiable. I took you to be concerned that Christianity had to be something one could falsify, because if it could be falsified, then it could also be found to be true. If, on the other hand it was not something that we could find out was false, it then could not be found out to be true. You were interested in showing that there were reasons for believing Christian doctrines, and those reasons were something like scientific hypotheses. If we do the research, we could find out whether they were true or false.
I wanted to question whether Christian doctrines were anything like scientific hypotheses, as you supposed. I wanted to question your supposition because I did not think the kinds of claims that Christianity makes can be found to be true or false. So, for example, I don’t think the claim that God exists is a claim that can be found to be true or false in the way that we could find out whether the moon is made of green cheese. I wonder about statements people make about the Christian God because it seems we could say of that God that he’s around even though we could not see, hear, or touch him.
However, I understood your effort to make the doctrines of Christianity falsifiable, and hence, potentially verifiable, came about because you are interested in showing that Christianity is not just dogma. It is not just dogma in the sense that people do have good reasons for being committed to Christian doctrines.
I want to remind us that this is where we started and say that I want to also establish that Christian doctrine must have reasons provided for them. Christians must try to provide reasons for their doctrines or else they will be put in the position of defending a position that offers no reasonable support for their views. Without reasons, I will suspect that Christians do not rely on argument and the truth in promoting their position as much as more mundane influences of violence, stealth, and deception. Why shouldn’t I think that Christians spread their faith by intimidation, or the brutal destruction of its rivals. I could look at the destruction of indigenous cultures in the new world as a way of eliminating any competition for the Christian church to win converts. I might point to the crusades as ways that the Christian church intimidated its Muslim rivals at the time.
I want to say that there are, in fact, arguments in support of Christian Doctrines about there being a savior, about the world being a matter of good vs. evil, and about the contrast between experience and special revelation.
Now, I have tried to give my own account of what those reasons are that supports Christian Doctrine. My effort has been to give an account of those reasons so that I can then go on to attack them and argue that the reasons that supported Christian doctrine actually cannot do so.
You have been resisting my efforts to undermine Christianity. You have done so in several ways. One way is to argue that I have mis-diagnosed the reasons or explanations behind Christian doctrine. You have said, “I related the ideas to the Allegory, that doesn’t mean they could only follow from the Allegory…” If I have given the wrong account of Christian beginnings, so to speak, then I can only fail if I then try to go on to argue that those false beginnings are infertile grounds. By your lights, it would not matter if Socrates was wrong about things; his arguments had nothing to do with Christianity in any case.
I just want to say that I am not trying to talk about who invented the light-bulb. I am not trying to say that we should be concerned with the pedigree of Christian doctrines. Rather, I’m trying to talk about the justification of Christian doctrines, whether they are correct or not. I’m saying Jesus was interpreted as a son of God and savior because people thought that reality was just how Socrates described it. His claim was that our reality is very much like how the cave dwellers live in his cave, restricted to experiencing a false world of shadows and echoes. In order to be saved from our opinions and prejudices we have to hear from a Socratic Hero who knows about our real situation. Christians came to understand Jesus was a savior because people were committed to an account of reality that told them that’s what he would have to be.
The argument that Socrates had nothing to do with Christianity supposes, I think, that people have to be talking about Socrates in order for us to reasonably say he had anything to do with the generation of Christian doctrine. Now, it has been pointed out that Christian thinkers early on were heavily influenced by Platonic, or neo-Platonic, if not Socratic ideas, when they began to think about what doctrines Christianity would involve. One might look at Augustine, for example. However, whether people spoke about particular philosophers, or not, the ideas Socrates had about how swords were more powerful than words, for example, are thought up all the time by people uninterested in attributing anything to philosophers.
The question that I raise remains a good one. What justifies anyone’s thinking that Jesus is divine and about saving us? This question is not about where the claims made about him came from.
You also have challenged my argument by making unsupported objections. So, when I said Christian doctrines could only come from the Allegory, you replied that Christian ideas may be related to the Allegory, they may be similar, but “…that doesn’t mean they could only follow from the Allegory.” Here you made a claim about Christian doctrines but failed to support your objection. You might have tried to explain what you meant by saying Christian doctrines were similar but did not follow. You might have tried to give an alternative story to the Allegory that would explain why Christians think their story about Jesus is true. You might have done these things and others, but you did not.
Similarly, you said “…Experience transcends the mind-matter dichotomy.” You said this but did not go on to support what you said. So, could you explain in an example how experience transcends such a dichotomy? Descartes thought that his thinking implied his existing. But, this is a controversial position. Berkeley thought that experience only showed things about the mind, thought nothing about what might be beyond experience. You make a controversial claim but did not spend any time trying to point out what support you might have.
You say, “…you’re arguing for a one-to-one correspondence between words and objects and I’m arguing that that doesn’t necessarily fly, but doesn’t subvert the importance of words either.” You make thins claim but you do not spend any effort showing that I in fact was pushing a one-to-one correspondence theory. You say such a theory doesn’t fly but you did not go on to suggest your own alternative. Doesn’t it seem to you that the terms of logical arguments have meaning only in context, and if so, how do we explain what the meaning of the terms of such arguments might be?
I am pointing out that though you were initially interested in pointing out that Christian doctrines have good reasons in their support, when it comes time to show what those reasons might be you are quick with the claims, but short on backing them up.
I would like to hear what you think supports the objections you have made to my arguments. The arguments you bring up to support your claims would help me understand what your objections are, and tell me to which objections I should pay particular attention. People can make a lot of objections that things seem different to them than the way I might make it out to be. But, if they have no reasons behind their objections it makes it hard to see what kind of credibility your objections might have.
You suggested that I have given too much weight to the Allegory. Perhaps there are other considerations that are more interesting to you. However, at the moment, I claim Christianity is based on Socratic commitments involving the Allegory of the cave. My attack on Christianity involves what I want to make out of the Allegory so I cannot see how I can make my objections without putting the Allegory in the front of my arguments.
The 26th of July, 2006 at 7:36 pm
1. We began with your discussion of whether Christian doctrine was falsifiable. I took you to be concerned that Christianity had to be something one could falsify, because if it could be falsified, then it could also be found to be true. If, on the other hand it was not something that we could find out was false, it then could not be found out to be true. You were interested in showing that there were reasons for believing Christian doctrines, and those reasons were something like scientific hypotheses. If we do the research, we could find out whether they were true or false.
Dlw: It’s easier for something to be falsifiable than for something to be proven true. Rather different accounts of “reality” can have similar predictions…
I wanted to question whether Christian doctrines were anything like scientific hypotheses, as you supposed. I wanted to question your supposition because I did not think the kinds of claims that Christianity makes can be found to be true or false. So, for example, I don’t think the claim that God exists is a claim that can be found to be true or false in the way that we could find out whether the moon is made of green cheese. I wonder about statements people make about the Christian God because it seems we could say of that God that he’s around even though we could not see, hear, or touch him.
Dlw: There’s a diff between there being God and the Christian God. The Christian God has made self revelations that can potentially be falsified. The Christian God also gave humanity free will, which makes it so that a good deal of the gratuitous evil in our lives cannot be placed at the feet of God.
For most Christians, it is the impact God has made in their lives that matters the most and this impact is something that cannot be proven objectively… Ie, it is subject to alternative interpretations. In other words, while the existence of the Christian God as revealed in the Bible is open to falsification, there still is faith involved in the affirmation in God’s existence.
However, I understood your effort to make the doctrines of Christianity falsifiable, and hence, potentially verifiable, came about because you are interested in showing that Christianity is not just dogma. It is not just dogma in the sense that people do have good reasons for being committed to Christian doctrines.
Yes, it’s not something that can be stretched to fit any situation and it is not against the use of reason… It does not rely on an angel coming and giving a special revelation to an individual that goes against everything that has been taught before. If you want to understand Jesus’s teachings well, you need to understand more about early 1st ctry Judaism and its antecedents, including the Old Testament. You need to understand what Jesus meant in proclaiming himself to be “true Israel”.
S:I want to remind us that this is where we started and say that I want to also establish that Christian doctrine must have reasons provided for them. Christians must try to provide reasons for their doctrines or else they will be put in the position of defending a position that offers no reasonable support for their views. Without reasons, I will suspect that Christians do not rely on argument and the truth in promoting their position as much as more mundane influences of violence, stealth, and deception. Why shouldn’t I think that Christians spread their faith by intimidation, or the brutal destruction of its rivals. I could look at the destruction of indigenous cultures in the new world as a way of eliminating any competition for the Christian church to win converts. I might point to the crusades as ways that the Christian church intimidated its Muslim rivals at the time.
Dlw: no doubt such historical actions are a serious blight on Christian witness, as will be the case if we keep silent on matters of neo-colonialism associated with globalization today.
S:I want to say that there are, in fact, arguments in support of Christian Doctrines about there being a savior, about the world being a matter of good vs. evil, and about the contrast between experience and special revelation.
Now, I have tried to give my own account of what those reasons are that supports Christian Doctrine. My effort has been to give an account of those reasons so that I can then go on to attack them and argue that the reasons that supported Christian doctrine actually cannot do so.
You have been resisting my efforts to undermine Christianity. You have done so in several ways. One way is to argue that I have mis-diagnosed the reasons or explanations behind Christian doctrine. You have said, “I related the ideas to the Allegory, that doesn’t mean they could only follow from the Allegory…” If I have given the wrong account of Christian beginnings, so to speak, then I can only fail if I then try to go on to argue that those false beginnings are infertile grounds. By your lights, it would not matter if Socrates was wrong about things; his arguments had nothing to do with Christianity in any case.
I just want to say that I am not trying to talk about who invented the light-bulb. I am not trying to say that we should be concerned with the pedigree of Christian doctrines. Rather, I’m trying to talk about the justification of Christian doctrines, whether they are correct or not. I’m saying Jesus was interpreted as a son of God and savior because people thought that reality was just how Socrates described it. His claim was that our reality is very much like how the cave dwellers live in his cave, restricted to experiencing a false world of shadows and echoes. In order to be saved from our opinions and prejudices we have to hear from a Socratic Hero who knows about our real situation. Christians came to understand Jesus was a savior because people were committed to an account of reality that told them that’s what he would have to be.
Dlw: But where is there in the earliest texts of Christianity that suggests such a line of reasoning was taking place? Otherwise, it is all juxtaposition and conjecture on your part.
S: The argument that Socrates had nothing to do with Christianity supposes, I think, that people have to be talking about Socrates in order for us to reasonably say he had anything to do with the generation of Christian doctrine. Now, it has been pointed out that Christian thinkers early on were heavily influenced by Platonic, or neo-Platonic, if not Socratic ideas, when they began to think about what doctrines Christianity would involve. One might look at Augustine, for example. However, whether people spoke about particular philosophers, or not, the ideas Socrates had about how swords were more powerful than words, for example, are thought up all the time by people uninterested in attributing anything to philosophers.
Dlw: Christian interaction with Platonic ideas didn’t really get going until the revival of Platonic thought in the mid 2nd ctry CE. We see Paul interacted some with Stoics and Epicureans in Athens in the Acts of the Apostles, but in doing that, he emphasized the radicalness of the Gospel with the resurrection of the Dead and the final judgement of all. This does not fit well with the Socratic allegory.
The claim that these ideas are just natural is specious to the degree it neglects the extent our thought today has been influenced by Greek and Hebraic thought.
S: The question that I raise remains a good one. What justifies anyone’s thinking that Jesus is divine and about saving us? This question is not about where the claims made about him came from.
Dlw: Yes, it is a good question. If you’d read books like “Letters from a Skeptic” by Greg Boyd, you’d get some better answers than I can come up with on the spot. Death comes for us all and it’ll come for our universe when it expands too much… The sorts of cooperation and selflessness we need to deal with the problems we face are not “natural” for us humans. We can only learn and follow others. The key figure we must learn from is Jesus. Others will lead to nihilism or violence.
S: You also have challenged my argument by making unsupported objections. So, when I said Christian doctrines could only come from the Allegory, you replied that Christian ideas may be related to the Allegory, they may be similar, but “…that doesn’t mean they could only follow from the Allegory.” Here you made a claim about Christian doctrines but failed to support your objection. You might have tried to explain what you meant by saying Christian doctrines were similar but did not follow. You might have tried to give an alternative story to the Allegory that would explain why Christians think their story about Jesus is true. You might have done these things and others, but you did not.
Dlw: Okay, so you want an alternative account for the similarities? How about this, Socrates formed the allegory based on what he learned from followers of Pythagoras, who himself learned from post-exilic Judaism, including possibly Daniel in Babylon. Hence, since Christianity also learned heavily from Judaism, there are similarities even though the Allegory had little to do with the formation of Christian doctrines.
It’s a plausible account and demonstrates that Christian doctrines need not come from the Allegory. They could be developed from older stories or analogies that were the basis for Socrates development of the Allegory.
S: Similarly, you said “…Experience transcends the mind-matter dichotomy.” You said this but did not go on to support what you said. So, could you explain in an example how experience transcends such a dichotomy? Descartes thought that his thinking implied his existing. But, this is a controversial position. Berkeley thought that experience only showed things about the mind, thought nothing about what might be beyond experience. You make a controversial claim but did not spend any time trying to point out what support you might have.
Dlw: I’m sorry I thought it was obvious, but sometimes I forget myself. We process things, events, with frames. Often they are frames we receive from others, but there is also some selectivity in how we frame things that make a big difference in how we understand these “experiences”. Take, for example, being adopted. One can say that one’s real parents didn’t want me or one can say that my parents, unlike most parents with their children, chose me. Which is true? Both are true and which one a child processes their experience with will make all the difference in the world for them.
S: You say, “…you’re arguing for a one-to-one correspondence between words and objects and I’m arguing that that doesn’t necessarily fly, but doesn’t subvert the importance of words either.” You make thins claim but you do not spend any effort showing that I in fact was pushing a one-to-one correspondence theory. You say such a theory doesn’t fly but you did not go on to suggest your own alternative. Doesn’t it seem to you that the terms of logical arguments have meaning only in context, and if so, how do we explain what the meaning of the terms of such arguments might be?
Dlw: We infer them from the context and our own and other’s past experiences with such terms… But that leads us back to the role of experience and the frames that we process them with…
S: I am pointing out that though you were initially interested in pointing out that Christian doctrines have good reasons in their support, when it comes time to show what those reasons might be you are quick with the claims, but short on backing them up.
Dlw: We are no longer talking about Christian doctrines. We are talking about linguistics and epistemology and how, even though aspects of Christian doctrine can be related to the Allegory of the Cave, this doesn’t mean they are derived from the Allegory of the Cave.
S: I would like to hear what you think supports the objections you have made to my arguments. The arguments you bring up to support your claims would help me understand what your objections are, and tell me to which objections I should pay particular attention. People can make a lot of objections that things seem different to them than the way I might make it out to be. But, if they have no reasons behind their objections it makes it hard to see what kind of credibility your objections might have.
You suggested that I have given too much weight to the Allegory. Perhaps there are other considerations that are more interesting to you. However, at the moment, I claim Christianity is based on Socratic commitments involving the Allegory of the cave. My attack on Christianity involves what I want to make out of the Allegory so I cannot see how I can make my objections without putting the Allegory in the front of my arguments.
Dlw: I’m a little burnt out on the Allegory. We’ve been going back and forth on it for quite some time. I assure you that my objections to the correspondence theory are nothing out of the ordinary in modern day philosophy/epistemology. If you want to persist in relating everything back to some manicheistic struggle centered on the cave allegory then that is your prerogative, but I think it’s overdone and a fruitless attack on Christianity.
Cheers,
dlw
The 26th of July, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I’ll try another approach later.
best regards,
sha
The 26th of July, 2006 at 11:48 pm
you too!
dlw