Civil Religion?

Though the "social contract" may be the traditional alternative to "religious correctness," it is not my response. We should reject both alternatives because both agree to a common assumption about how we should understand knowledge and values. Both the "politically correct" and the "religiously correct" have only a hairsbreadth philosophical difference.

They both agree to Socrates's account of knowledge and values. That account claims knowledge and values, a.k.a., morality, are a matter of logical argument....

Socrates's account implies knowledge and values are impossible. The terms of logical arguments are meaningless, when compared to words, and are thus manipulable by the powerful. Arguments that would otherwise be effective to obtain knowledge and values, are futile. And life, in a world so described, is not worth living.

Hence, one's commitment to Socrates's account of knowledge and values as a matter of logic establishes skepticism, nihilism, and relativism.

People are still confronted with their lives, despite what philosophers say. They rely on philosophical arguments to provide ways of thinking and making decisions about their lives and the lives in a risky world.

One might suppose there wouldn't be much more to say, once one has gotten people to hold a position that makes knowledge and values impossible, argument futile, and life so understood not worth living. Yet, one must understand that Socrates gets us to adopt such a position for a reason.

The reason is his underlying thought that the purpose, point, and meaning of life is to survive, and the point of accumulating wealth and power is to assure those who have it they will be more assured of survival than those who don't.

The further thought of the powerful is that swords are more powerful than words. The point of power is to be able to employ more force to get done what it takes to survive. Socrates's efforts to seduce us into adopting his account of knowledge and values is to destroy words and the arguments made with words as the strength and refuge of the weak. Without words, the weak have nothing in the face of overwhelming force. They cannot dissent. They cannot critique.

The account of Socrates here suggested has many virtues. It provides an explanation of how the "politically correct" and the "religiously correct" participate in such a vicious and seemingly endless argument. The reason is they both are responses to the obvious complaint that Socrates's basic position cannot be true. It cannot be true, so his audience should say, because it makes our lives pointless and impossible, whereas we do have lives involving knowledge and values, have purposes, and much worth defending.

[via Touchy Subjects]