Philosophy's Corrupting Influence
or
Idle Hands are the Workshop of the Devil
G.D.O'Bradovich III
October 26, 2012
We will explore what,specifically, are the corruption charges against Philosophy. The accusation against Socrates was corruption of the youth and deny the gods. The specification of youth corruption will be allow us to clarify why this group is either more prone to corruption or easier to accept the corrupting influence. The successful corruption of youth and denying the gods have a single source-critical reasoning.
In the Republic, the aged Cephalus leaves to offer sacrifices and the Socrates is free to corrupt Polemarchus and Plato’s brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus. The discerning reader realizes that with the influence of the ancestral, represented by Cephalus, no philosophizing can occur. Only with Cephalus’ departure can Socrates investigate things in heaven and under the earth and create new gods.
Socrates, under the guise of discussing justice, was attempting to ascertain if Cephalus was open to Philosophy. We are told several years have passed since they last met. In Socrates experience, older people are not good candidates for philosophy, but Socrates did not know if Cephalus is now open to different views. Older people tend to have a vested interest in the status quo of the city. The young have not invested time in the city, so they are, as a group, more likely to have individuals who are attracted to the questioning of convention. Since Cephalus leaves the discussion to Polemarchus, Socrates knows that Cephalus is not able to be corrupted. He is a gentleman.
Philosophy seeks to find the unchanging in the world. Eventually, this seeking will touch upon conventional morality. Conventional morality is based on the good being the ancestral, that is, time honored tradition. Young people question the actions and beliefs of their parents. This is expected. What is unexpected, an accident of history, is that a someone questions the youth and, through dialectics, leads them to question not only their parents, but the city and morality. Socrates was famous for stating the he knows nothing. We can only conclude, by Socrates’ lack of knowledge, that he allows, and encourages, the youths to reach their own conclusions about the ancestral, the city, religion and morality. Although these conclusions may vary, the astute youth no longer believe that there city is unique. They know that no city, by extension, is special. The corrupted youths are now cosmopolitan and not tribal.
The above average youths realize that their parents, their peers, their educators and their city has lied to them. If Philosophers hate the lie in their own souls, then these select disenfranchised youths hate the lies in other people. Socrates or any corrupter of the youth can honestly say that “Everyone has lied to you. I have not lied to you, because I don’t know anything and freely admit my ignorance.”
Gentle reader, Philosophy is not compatible with the city or religion. Certain people have reasoned that since philosophy seeks the truth and Christianity seeks or is the truth, that both are compatible. The seeking nature of Philosophy is detrimental to the cohesive nature of the city. The city expects loyalty, not subversive behavior, from citizens. Christianity expects belief, not questioning behavior, from adherents. Once the inquiring youth realizes how insecure the foundations of their city are, they will question the foundations of their faith. Their faith will be destroyed, but their mind will be strengthened. As Saint Paul says, philosophers are always learning and never able to come the to knowledge of the truth.
As Allan Bloom states in his commentary on the Republic, only in a Democracy does philosophy exist without persecution. Democracy's lazy faire behavior allows any and all things, whether botched and bungled people or corrupting ideas, to exist and philosophy flourishes in this decadent environment.
An amateur philologist once said the Christianity sows the seeds of its destruction. To investigate this extraordinary claim we begin with the premise that Christianity teaches that all are equal before God. This basic premise is questioned in the movie “Amadeus” with humorous effect. We will accept this premise and the statement that all fall short of the glory of God, although Saint Paul does not give a definition for “God”. Therefore, we are equal and corrupt or sinful. With the passage of time, this equality before God becomes all men are equal in the sight of the Law. We will accept this development to insure a rational judicial system for reaching rational legal conclusions for rational citizens. We reach, in a Democracy, the idea that all men are equal without exception. This development of the equality of men will transform into an equality of ideas. If all ideas are equal, that is, one idea does not have more merit than another idea, then all beliefs, by extension, are equal. Once these conditions are met-all men are equal, all ideas are equal, all beliefs are equal-we reach the decadence of Democracy. The epitome of this Democratic lifestyle is reflected in Berlin, Germany of the 1920’s. This unnatural decadence will not endure forever and will be replace by more austere or conservative behavior. A hallmark of this conservatism will be denying this democratic past and a return to the inequality of men, ideas and beliefs.
How does the historical example of Berlin demonstrates that philosophy is not for the majority, but a select few? In a society where a select minority do not accept conventional morality and behave in a manner that is against common morality,but practice temperance regarding the freedom that they have in Philosophy, there is no concern that the country will be corrupted. However, when the behavior of the philosopher is mimicked by those without self control, that is, the majority, and with openness, the end of the city is nigh. The reason that certain people ignore the experience of Germany in the 1920’s is that this will clearly show that the philosophical lifestyle is not compatible with the lifestyles of the majority and, by extension, philosophy is not compatible with religion.
We can now understand why Philosophy only exists in a Democracy-all ideas and beliefs are equal, regardless if there is any merit or factual basis. Only in a Democratic society is there enough leisure time for our friend the Philosopher to chat up and question select youth. Only in a Democracy would the idea of working be equal to the idea of not working be allowed to see the light of day. Not only does this irrational identity of equating “working” and “not working” exist, but thrives. Gentle reader, we can truly state that “Idle hands are the workshop of the Philosopher.”
In the Republic, the aged Cephalus leaves to offer sacrifices and the Socrates is free to corrupt Polemarchus and Plato’s brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus. The discerning reader realizes that with the influence of the ancestral, represented by Cephalus, no philosophizing can occur. Only with Cephalus’ departure can Socrates investigate things in heaven and under the earth and create new gods.
Socrates, under the guise of discussing justice, was attempting to ascertain if Cephalus was open to Philosophy. We are told several years have passed since they last met. In Socrates experience, older people are not good candidates for philosophy, but Socrates did not know if Cephalus is now open to different views. Older people tend to have a vested interest in the status quo of the city. The young have not invested time in the city, so they are, as a group, more likely to have individuals who are attracted to the questioning of convention. Since Cephalus leaves the discussion to Polemarchus, Socrates knows that Cephalus is not able to be corrupted. He is a gentleman.
Philosophy seeks to find the unchanging in the world. Eventually, this seeking will touch upon conventional morality. Conventional morality is based on the good being the ancestral, that is, time honored tradition. Young people question the actions and beliefs of their parents. This is expected. What is unexpected, an accident of history, is that a someone questions the youth and, through dialectics, leads them to question not only their parents, but the city and morality. Socrates was famous for stating the he knows nothing. We can only conclude, by Socrates’ lack of knowledge, that he allows, and encourages, the youths to reach their own conclusions about the ancestral, the city, religion and morality. Although these conclusions may vary, the astute youth no longer believe that there city is unique. They know that no city, by extension, is special. The corrupted youths are now cosmopolitan and not tribal.
The above average youths realize that their parents, their peers, their educators and their city has lied to them. If Philosophers hate the lie in their own souls, then these select disenfranchised youths hate the lies in other people. Socrates or any corrupter of the youth can honestly say that “Everyone has lied to you. I have not lied to you, because I don’t know anything and freely admit my ignorance.”
Gentle reader, Philosophy is not compatible with the city or religion. Certain people have reasoned that since philosophy seeks the truth and Christianity seeks or is the truth, that both are compatible. The seeking nature of Philosophy is detrimental to the cohesive nature of the city. The city expects loyalty, not subversive behavior, from citizens. Christianity expects belief, not questioning behavior, from adherents. Once the inquiring youth realizes how insecure the foundations of their city are, they will question the foundations of their faith. Their faith will be destroyed, but their mind will be strengthened. As Saint Paul says, philosophers are always learning and never able to come the to knowledge of the truth.
As Allan Bloom states in his commentary on the Republic, only in a Democracy does philosophy exist without persecution. Democracy's lazy faire behavior allows any and all things, whether botched and bungled people or corrupting ideas, to exist and philosophy flourishes in this decadent environment.
An amateur philologist once said the Christianity sows the seeds of its destruction. To investigate this extraordinary claim we begin with the premise that Christianity teaches that all are equal before God. This basic premise is questioned in the movie “Amadeus” with humorous effect. We will accept this premise and the statement that all fall short of the glory of God, although Saint Paul does not give a definition for “God”. Therefore, we are equal and corrupt or sinful. With the passage of time, this equality before God becomes all men are equal in the sight of the Law. We will accept this development to insure a rational judicial system for reaching rational legal conclusions for rational citizens. We reach, in a Democracy, the idea that all men are equal without exception. This development of the equality of men will transform into an equality of ideas. If all ideas are equal, that is, one idea does not have more merit than another idea, then all beliefs, by extension, are equal. Once these conditions are met-all men are equal, all ideas are equal, all beliefs are equal-we reach the decadence of Democracy. The epitome of this Democratic lifestyle is reflected in Berlin, Germany of the 1920’s. This unnatural decadence will not endure forever and will be replace by more austere or conservative behavior. A hallmark of this conservatism will be denying this democratic past and a return to the inequality of men, ideas and beliefs.
How does the historical example of Berlin demonstrates that philosophy is not for the majority, but a select few? In a society where a select minority do not accept conventional morality and behave in a manner that is against common morality,but practice temperance regarding the freedom that they have in Philosophy, there is no concern that the country will be corrupted. However, when the behavior of the philosopher is mimicked by those without self control, that is, the majority, and with openness, the end of the city is nigh. The reason that certain people ignore the experience of Germany in the 1920’s is that this will clearly show that the philosophical lifestyle is not compatible with the lifestyles of the majority and, by extension, philosophy is not compatible with religion.
We can now understand why Philosophy only exists in a Democracy-all ideas and beliefs are equal, regardless if there is any merit or factual basis. Only in a Democratic society is there enough leisure time for our friend the Philosopher to chat up and question select youth. Only in a Democracy would the idea of working be equal to the idea of not working be allowed to see the light of day. Not only does this irrational identity of equating “working” and “not working” exist, but thrives. Gentle reader, we can truly state that “Idle hands are the workshop of the Philosopher.”