"Despite what you say on behalf of talking out our problems, isn't "survival through thuggery" the most compelling philosophy of life?"

A critic might respond to my position, "You know, Steve, you may try to make a case for talking out our problems, but if Socrates does, in fact, promote "survival through thuggery" as his philosophy of life, it is just too compelling for anybody already a Socratic to give up on it."

I have to say that I've so far spent most of my time trying to state the position I want to take. I have not spent as much time  defending it from its likely critics.

 

The position I'm taking on Socrates, though, takes on all the criticisms that Socratics might make about it. If we want to resolve the conflicts raised by our concerns about the ends and means of life, we have to address the criticisms each view raises about its opponent.

If our concern is for our own survival and given the choice between a  talking over our problems and relying on force, my critic argues that people are going to survive by any means necessary, even if it involves "cracking a few eggs," so to speak.

Irrespective of our understanding of Socrates, survival is a very compelling goal. One might think that happiness or pleasure would be a goal we'd be able to get behind, and maybe we'd think feeling good or being happy about what was going on might be even more desirable goals. But, the argument is

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/G/gericault/raft_of_the_medusa.jpg.html

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/crisis/crisis4d.html

made that if you don't survive, then these goals and any other ones you could think of would not be possible. That is, it would be nice to be happy, or feel good, but you have to be alive to experience these things.

Being concerned about one's survival is a lot like going to the dentist.  Just like the problems we have with our teeth, life involves issues that make things inconvenient, but can also make life difficult and sometimes impossible. We go to the dentist expecting to experience some pain, for example, when the dentist injects us with Novocain, or drills, jabs, scrapes, or pokes at us. We go through the momentary pain expecting the cavities to get filled, the teeth to be straightened, or the gums to be made healthy. We expect to be better off in the end. Our concern about survival involves our allowing that our loved ones risk dangers, that we might have illnesses that incapacitate or make us suffer, that we experience impoverishment, we may not eat, or drink, or have a roof over our head, or maybe not have a job, or do anything worthwhile with ourselves, or maybe even do crimes, and be bad to others. However, we try to survive because we expect the things that are going wrong for us at the moment are only temporary. Survival is important because unless we survive no other value is possible. Those values we hope and expect to accrue after we get through the temporary crises of the present.

Survival is a compelling goal for those people who value their lives, who value their lives because in their lives they have these other values.

I'm not just saying that underlying all of what Socrates argues is the claim that the supreme end of life is one's personal survival. I'm also saying that he thinks the only way to assure our survival is through the employment of force.  He thinks we need to instill fear and obedience through the use of violence, stealth, and deceit. 

Of all the things I've said about Socrates, this may be the most counter-intuitive. Socrates, after all, was a philosopher and lover of wisdom who devoted himself to thinking things over. He has us talk first before acting. Even though he served in the Athenian armies, he never seemed to advocate any dispute be solved by force.

http://www.uvm.edu/theview/article.php?id=1835

Nevertheless, the problems that generated the great Platonic dialogues involving Socrates arose out of his initial commitment to "survival through thuggery," as I've put it.

Well, the idea that  our philosophy of life should be "survival through thuggery" or maybe "peace through strength," has to be based on some kind of an argument. He didn't just decide to throw down words and pick up a club. There has to be a reason we think that we gotta rely on force in order to get anything done.  There are a lot of tasks and questions that you wouldn't think force would be appropriate.

One also has to wonder whether the answer pushed by Socrates, that we gotta get by using swords and clubs and yelling and screaming, is in our interests or someone else's.

The Socratic argument involves his account of reason. I have claimed that he makes reason out to be a matter of logical argument. The important thing about this position is that if we want to understand how we think, how we understand anything, we must look into the nature of logical arguments. There had been a dispute between advocates of rhetorical argumentation and logical argumentation. Socrates rejected rhetoric, and the views of rhetoricians like Thrasymachus, in favor of logic.

I am not arguing that Socrates is the first one to make such an argument. I'm only saying that in the philosophical literature he can be counted as the most important and influential.

Now, it may be pointed out that people who advocate logic as a model of reasoning go on to condemn anyone's employment of force. The appeal to force to win an argument is even counted as a fallacy.

Don Levi points this out,

"Argumentum ad Baculum is when force or intimidation is used instead of argument."

Often intimidation can be more effective than argument in gaining an advantage. Many people do not like to say no even when they really want to. They find it especially difficult to do so when the demand on them is made very forcefully.

Don Levi, Critical Thinking and Logic, page 43

There is a question here whether this appeal is a problem of rhetoric or of logic. Levi says,

"A fallacy is a characteristically deceptive mistake in argument."

Rhetorical ploys may be considered fallacies when used where an argument should have been given. But it is misleading to refer to them as mistaken or bad arguments, as many teachers of this subject do. Rhetorical ploys are not bad arguments: someone who uses a rhetorical ploy fallaciously is using it instead of giving an argument.

Don Levi, ibid, page 37

I take it Levi here tells us that when people are engaged in giving an argument, if instead, they use force or intimidation, then they are engaged in this rhetorical ploy called  "Argumentum ad Baculum." He points out that this ploy is not a matter of giving a mistaken argument. Instead, as he puts it, it is done instead of giving an argument.

The idea that life is about "survival through thuggery" is derived from a more basic argument having to do with how we are to understand reason. Socrates claims that reason is a matter of logical argument. I'm saying this claim is something we could dispute. Being illogical has been taken to be the same as being unreasonable. It is not.

One might argue that there is a contrast to logical argument in something called rhetorical argument. Socrates laid waste to that position, we might be told, so it makes no sense to visit that barren field one more time.

I instead want to point out the distinction between argument understood as a matter of their being about controversies, involving arguers taking positions about those controversies, and providing support for those positions taken, and the position Socrates takes which is that argument need only involve two of these three characteristics of argumentation. Socrates chooses to advocate the idea that reason must be about logical argument where logic involves positions that people take and support that they provide for those positions. Logical arguments, unlike rhetorical arguments, are not about issues or controversies.

When I suggested that we could dispute things that Socrates pretended were indisputable I meant to point out that his account of how we should understand reason was disputable. Instead of what Socrates says, we could commit ourselves to the idea that reason was a matter of argument involving controversies, positions, and supports, instead of just positions and their supports.

What argument did Socrates make to support our choosing the view he advocated instead of the view that I have here suggested is really more appropriate? He had an argument and I think it has to do with considering how what's at stake in an argument effects who should provide any input in that argument.

Socrates must have argued that the context of any of our arguments was a violent world where our lives are always in danger and we are always suffering or about to suffer because of some danger. Given such a situation, we are always in a position of calculating whether what we are doing or about to do poses a risk for us. This is an important question because if we make the wrong decision, we risk suffering more or even losing our lives. The question arises, then whether we should consider the views of others in evaluating the information before us.  Socrates argues at this point that we should never consider the views of others as they would never be relevant in our making up our minds about what must be done. The views of others are never relevant partly because other people must be thought to be in the same position as ourselves, and thus have their lives and possible suffering at stake in any decision they are asked to make. It would be irrational to consider the views of others in making up our own minds because  our lives are at stake in this decision, and not theirs. They would have no good reason to make a good decision for us. 

The Myth of Gyges provides an example that supports this Socratic claim. Remember, Gyges uses the ring of invisibility to make sure that no one in his kingdom is in a position to dissent or undermine his decisions or actions. He uses his power to force or intimidate obedience.  Plato says about this that

http://www.warofthering.net/gallery/galleries/displayimage.php?album=85&pos=65

anyone in Gyges' position would do the same. No one should oppose what Gyges did because to do otherwise, that is, to let others have their own mind on matters concerning Gyges, would be irrational. 

It seems that this must be that argument that Socrates made on behalf of his account of reason because Jesus claimed the most important concern God had for us is that we respect or love the views, or point of view, of others,  just as we want others to respect or love our own views or point of view. This was important to Jesus, or the character called Jesus, because it is just the counterpoint to the argument that Socrates makes on behalf of his position. Socrates says we should never respect or love or take into consideration a view or point of view of anyone else, because they are in no position to respect or love one's own view or point of view. They shouldn't be allowed to do it because they don't have your well being at heart.

I am suggesting that the Socratic account of reason is based on a certain view of how appropriate it is for others to make helpful suggestions about questions that arise in our lives. He's saying since such kibitzing is never appropriate, then we are left with the account of reason that makes it a matter of logical argument.

The thing about logical arguments are that they are, unlike rhetorical arguments, not about controversies, and hence, also unlike rhetorical arguments, one cannot compare or contrast one logical argument with any other. It is this aspect of logical arguments that has been ignored. It is this aspect which makes a life based on reason so impossible to understood.

If you think of being in your study writing your letters in terms of the Socratic account of reason, you cannot compare your being in your study, as a logical argument, with your dreaming you are in your study also understood as such an argument. Descartes problems about knowledge are very real for people who've committed themselves to the Socratic account of reason.

The point of argumentation is to come to more than just your odd beliefs and preferences about things, but to develop some knowledge and come to have real values about them. If knowledge is impossible because we cannot compare one view expressed in terms of logical arguments with any others, then argumentation so understood is futile. It will never get you anywhere.

Hence, one comes to the Socratic idea that swords are more effective than words for assuring ones survival because words and arguments understood in terms of his account of reason as a matter of logical argument makes getting anywhere by reason impossible. If anything is going to get done, from defending oneself, to putting together dinner, to taking a position, to changing one's mind, one has to rely on force and its many allies. Words and the arguments made with them, understood as logical arguments, can't do nothing.

It may give comfort to Socratic to be told that Socrates had reasons to have us adopt his view of reason. They then can say that they are not arbitrary in then taking the view that one's life should be about "survival through thuggery." They can take comfort in thinking that Socrates had an argument to support his view against not only the rhetoricians but also the advocates of this other kind of argumentation involving controversies, positions, and supports. 

The problem with the Socratic position is that his account of reason not only suggests that nothing can be done through the use of words, and their arguments, but that there's nothing really valuable or knowable.

Yes, Socratics would like to think that they will work to survive and they'll use force if they have to, but their position is predicated on a view that says life understood so that knowledge and values are impossible, implies that there are no lights at the end of anyone's tunnels. That is, one might think

http://www.dental--health.com/specialsubject1.html

that one will go to the dentist to go through some momentary pain in order to have better teeth and healthier gums in the future. However, on this view, there will never be healthy teeth and gums. There  can be no reward for going through the pain and suffering inflicted upon you in the dentist's chair. Turns out you have a disease where your teeth will soon fall out and your gums will shrivel. Similarly, we may go through a lot of pain and suffering so that we can survive because we had hoped to have a better day in the future, or because we expect to be somehow rewarded for our efforts. However, if knowledge and values are impossible, arguments that would lead to such things futile, where justice, love, and other valuables are terms of logical arguments manipulated by the powerful, and thus, life so understood would be not worth living, then there would be no point to surviving.

On the view according to Socrates, if reason is a matter of logical argument, then just as knowledge and values are impossible and so arguments that get us to  come to these things are futile, then too, any lights at the end of our tunnels are impossible and the violence, stealth, and deceit relied on as means to those ends instead of arguments  are likewise  futile.

People might think that I am here advocating the idea that instead of using force, we rely on talking about things to solve our problems. They might think that this is a particularly weak argument to avoid things like wars and robbery, and such, because without doing anything about the fact that the powerful seem to rule the world, talking about problems with our enemies/victims is just killing and stealing from them without the killing and stealing. Yes, we can go and discuss the situation in Iraq with the Iraqis and explain to them that if they don't give Bush their oil he will have us invade their country and kill them and steal it anyway. So, they might then give Bush their oil and thus avoid a lot of foolish bloodshed and suffering.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tecumseh-s-war

But this would not really solve any problems because Bush would still have their oil and they wouldn't. They will not then in the future be able to use the capital generated by the sale of that oil to create a society that could meet their people's needs. Talking about problems at a time when people are Socratic and committed to "survival through thuggery" will just perpetuate the use of words that aren't words and arguments that aren't arguments to accomplish the same thing as swords and hoodlums would do otherwise.

It might seem Socrates advocates the most compelling position imaginable saying we gotta survive and sometimes we have to use force to get it done. That may seem like a strong position, but,  taking him to be arguing for that  would be to oversimplify his position. It seems we have to rely on force because he's made words and their arguments impossible to work with. If he's done that, he's also made our lives worthless and thereby taken away the reason we would even want to survive. Given the fact that his position implies that life would not be worth living, and he suspects that he'd lose his audience, he likens our lives to the lives of people who live in a cave world who can there be rescued by a proverbial God whisking us away on a flying chariot. It takes our credulous agreement to a dubious analogy to make his account of reason  acceptable.

Really though, "survival through thuggery" cannot be sustained as a philosophy of life.