Epistemological Relativism

In tonight’s discussion of letter 26 we followed a small rabbit. This rabbit, which seems to get my attention a lot these days, led us to the concept of “The Law”. For the uninitiated unwashed, hell-bound heathens (this means you Keith) many Christians refer to the Ten Commandments, the Hebrew Scriptures or anything that resembles some form of divine restrictions as “The Law”. They get this most likely from a translator’s rendering of the Hebrew word torah. The prevailing view, it seems, is that this Law is not actually useful as guide to right conduct character, but only as a standard which we should use to realize our failure as humans. This is odd to me, because, from my non-scholarly experience with the Hebrew Scriptures, this is precisely what it was used for. What’s more is that this word, torah, in the view of real scholars, “if one were to attempt to capture the essence of the torah in the OT, ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching’ rather than ‘law’ with its particular modern connotation, may be terms that best do justice to the variety of uses. [1]” Even if we ignore this scholarly assessment, the whole body of the Hebrew Scripture communicates something along these lines [2]. Attitudes toward this torah range from delight, devotion, careful study and obedience. With this in view, it seems to me, that there is something a bit more behind this one dimensional assessment to the law that many Christians seem to embrace. It seems much more real, useful and engaging than some lifeless standard for failure measurement that it has been reduced to. I know, this is a short rant with minimal substance. I promise to do a much longer essay in the near future.

[1] New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Volume 4, Page 897
[2] Psalm 1, Deuteronomy 6:25, Psalm 119:97

Theology

Requests for a very lame and nearly useless stylesheet I wrote for Nmap’s XML output several years ago still seem to trickle in. Out of pity, you can find it here. It has not been maintained for a couple of years and, as a result, may not match the current XML schema. Happy trails.

Code

Through the twists and turns of Plato’s Meno Socrates explores a variety of ideas that have as much value today as they did when Plato first penned this dialogue. The irony, of course, is that the interlocutor, Meno, wanted to know whether virtue was teachable. Socrates, responding in a typical fashion, states that he cannot answer this question without first knowing what virtue is. Through many failed attempts to define virtue we are taken on an interesting journey.

One of the ideas encountered near the end of this dialogue, when the Socratic dialectic has almost completely broken down, is the concept of true opinion. In the Meno Socrates defines true opinion as something which is true in reality, but, perhaps, not known as fact by the person in possession of this opinion. Socrates states that, as long as someone possesses true opinion, he will always be right.

Now this may seem obvious to some, but Socrates takes it a step further:

98C – So that right opinion will be no whit inferior to knowledge in worth or usefulness as regards our actions, nor will the man who has right opinion be inferior to him who has knowledge

Here Socrates equates true opinion and knowledge. In Socrates view these are one and the same. Or are they?

97E – For these (true opinions), so long as they stay with us, are a fine possession, and effect all that is good; but they do not care to stay for long, and run away out of the human soul, and thus are of no great value until one makes them fast with causal reasoning

There it is. There is one distinct and permanent advantage that knowledge has over true opinion. True opinion because it, in most cases, does “not care to stay for long, and runs away out of the human soul” has a serious deficiency.

Many replace knowledge with true opinion. In other words, there is a wholesale exchange going on. True opinion is equal in every way to real knowledge. Taken a step further false opinion has also been tossed in with true opinion. True opinion or unjustified beliefs simply, “become true for me” whether it is, in fact, a reflection of reality. Socrates didn’t scoff at true opinion as he understood it and also appreciated its utility, but he also understood the greater value of real knowledge:

98A – But when once they are fastened, in the first place they turn into knowledge, and in the second, are abiding. And this is why knowledge is more prized than right opinion: the one transcends the other by its trammels.

Sadly the search for knowledge or to make true opinion “stay for long” is, for the most part, a lost art. Bcause of this the possessors of this true opinion do not have the ability to determine if these opinions are in fact right. If they care at all. Yes, Socrates says that, because they are true they will always be right. I agree that the effects of this knowledge (moral decisions for example) will be right, but the owner will have no reasons to believe his opinions are true. I think Socrates hits it right on here with regards to true opinion being a bit inferior to knowledge. Reason can “fasten” this true opinions and transform them into real knowledge. The real question is, are we a Meno and simply too tired to do the heavy lifting required to discover these gems?

Books, Thoughts