Philosophy as a consolation tool for navigating modern hardships

¶ … wisdom of Socrates today: The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton

The first chapter of Alain de Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy is set in an art museum. The author gazes upon an image of David's The Death of Socrates. De Botton contrasts his desire to be liked with the Greek philosopher's willingness to be unpopular, to the point of accepting a death sentence. "If the postcard [I bought of the David] struck me so forcefully, it was perhaps the behavior contrasted so sharply with my own" (De Botton 6). Socrates is both defiant and serene in the famous painting. He does not condemn his enemies and he accepts his fate, but he also refuses to tailor his philosophy to their dictates. De Botton says that unlike Socrates, he tries to win friends with his words, and nuances his speech so as not to be offensive in conversation.

The nature of philosophy demands that we challenge conventional wisdom and the status quo. One of the aspects of Socrates' teachings which made him so irritating to people (at least in Plato's versions of his dialogues) is that he constantly questioned the surface meanings of his society in regards to its definitions of piety, truth, and the relationship of humanity to the gods. With the benefit of hindsight and from our current ethical paradigm we find many aspects of Greek society distasteful, such as its allowance of slavery; its treatment of women; and its militarism. We are apt to look at the fact that Socrates was condemned to death with horror as a violation of our notions of free speech.

Yet we do not necessarily question the unspoken assumptions of our own culture. Not only are we afraid of social censure; we sometimes do not even consider that it is possible to live in a way different than how things are in the present day. For example, fifty years ago in the American South, it was assumed by most white people that African-Americans were intrinsically inferior to whites. Today, we look on such prejudices as backward. Up to the 1970s, homosexuality was classified as a disease by the psychiatric establishment; today it is merely considered a 'difference' in most elements of our culture.

Because of readily available but questionable common sense wisdom, we are apt to think we know more than we really know, according to Socrates, even though the art and science of arriving at correct philosophical conclusions is just as difficult as creating a new shoe or a work of pottery. While technical crafts look as difficult, according to De Bottom, as they actually are in practice, philosophy appears simple but is really very difficult. In many ways philosophy is even more challenging. Although it is hard to learn a technical skill, once it is mastered after a significant number of repetitions, the person can feel as if he or she 'owns' that skill. One can train the mind to be more questioning of common assumptions but reaching a final answer of 'truth' is elusive even for trained philosophers. Even many Socratic dialogues merely end in more doubt, rather than an answer.

There is also the paradox that one can know how to do something, yet not know philosophically 'why' this is the case. My grandmother can bake an excellent cake, but it is impossible to follow her recipes because she does everything by eye and feel. She also has used the same pans and same oven for many years, so she instinctively knows how everything should be measured based upon her practical experience. However, this means she cannot really adjust the recipes to teach someone else how to recreate them. In contrast, someone who is technically proficient in cooking and baking and knows the why's and the how's behind the science and art can recreate recipes under a wide variety of different conditions. Knowing the why's behind the science gives the person the ability to adjust their actions to different environments. This is an argument for knowing the 'philosophy' of something, even if someone already knows how to practice the task.

Someone can know how to fight in a war without being able to define what is 'justice' or 'courage,' as is seen in Socrates' dialogue with great generals who struggle unsuccessfully to define such virtues. One might seem to exhibit such virtues, based upon the Athenian terms for such values on the battlefield, but be unable to define them in words. But a definition of courage may vary from culture to culture: even during Socrates' day, the Spartan virtues of military valor were different from those of the democratic Athenians, the latter of which emphasized the free, willed choice of every male citizen to fight as part of the army, versus Spartan's oligarchic military discipline.

Having an idea of what is a universal, philosophical definition of a virtue makes it easier to uphold such values, even when social definitions are in flux, as occurs with changes in one's culture or when someone moves to a different culture. Although the comic playwright Aristophanes portrayed Socrates' concerns as absurd and contrary to common sense, the idea of what constitutes universal human rights is a very real philosophical struggle today for international bodies such as the United Nations. How does one protect the sovereignty of states, yet protect individual human rights within states' borders? Are universal female suffrage and protection for gay people universal human values, even though some theocratic states limit these freedoms? Only philosophy can answer such questions, even though there is a profound practical implication in answering them. One cannot rely upon common sense because common sense wisdom varies from culture to culture.

De Bottom believes that the strength of the Socratic Method is that its rationality allows us to convince others of our points-of-view. This seems rather optimistic. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court found that 'rationally' separate but equal was not a feasible principle by which to govern the American educational system, according to the law and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution, common emotional attitudes had to change over a long period of time. Rationality may have been instrumental in bringing about some of the first, seismic changes of all of the modern civil rights movement in America, but it was clearly not enough to foster lasting change. Emotionally persuasive methods like sit-ins, marches, and rhetoric were also required.