a little bit of philosophy

Socrates and Plato as well as Augustine were all great philosophers of their time. Each had different ways and styles of presenting an argument. Their studies on good and evil are both very unique yet they have many similarities and differences. Socrates philosophy-his teachings relied on the student learning for himself and drawing his own conclusions. Plato’s works were similar. However, Augustine was more forthcoming with his thoughts and ideas in his work more than Socrates and Plato; he did not leave it to the discretion of the person hearing or reading his works to decide how they should be interpreted.

At first Socrates did not believe himself to be wise but after traveling and asking many questions he realized he was wiser than most. However, Socrates had his critics; he ended up poor and unable to hold public office because of his viewpoints and the questions he raised. Augustine like many philosophers including Plato and Socrates also had his critics. During the time of these great philosophers being outspoken was not something that agreed with the flow of societal norms. Their teachings and philosophies went against the Church and the way people were brought up by their families at the time. This is what I find to be most interesting because despite the fact that they would be ostracized for what they said, they said it anyway. It is not like people today who just say things because they believe it will get them the most followers on Twitter or the most Likes on Facebook. Those guys actually had something to say; something real-- something that made you actually think whether you agreed with what was being said or not.

Being a Sophist or a Naturalist were not things Socrates considered himself to be. He did not follow a particular school of thought nor did he charge for his teachings. (This is something else that I find fascinating about Socrates. People actually listened because they wanted to listen and he didn't charge them for it. This would never happen today!! Kim Kardashian gets paid to tweet that she went to the gym....its insane.) Socrates believed in everyone living an examined life; a life in which they question life. He argued that one should live their life “according to the good life." Socrates followed an ethical discourse and searched for what good is and how one should live according to it. However, Socrates never claimed or believed that he knew the truth. He believed that through reason everyone has the potential to know the truth on a subject as long as that truth is sought out through the guidance of a teacher such as himself through a technical process. Socrates does not particularly define what is good and what is evil. He believes that is something one determines on their own through a carefully examine magnify glass to life. Once they have examined something they determine for themselves what is good and what is evil. Socrates is “the rational examiner of the good life”. This is something I totally agree with. I do not like society placing labels on what is good and what is bad. I truly believe that it is something we should determine for ourselves. Now DO NOT get me wrong...I am in no way saying that drinking a case of beer then getting behind the wheel is good, for example. Obviously there are limitations to good and evil. There are boundaries--- Too much of anything is never a good thing. However, what I am saying is that I do not like how society places labels on things. I agree with Socrates that living life and exploring is the only way to determine for oneself what is good and what is evil.
It is such a shame that Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and blasphemy because he was a great philosopher!

Socrates developed something called “Socratic Irony” that allowed the student to figure out the truth on their own. In Socrates’ comment on his death he believed that no evil can happen to a good man. This is an interesting point. Although, I do not agree 100% with it. I believe evil CAN happen to a good man because it is a test from God to see how he will react to it. It is not to say that Socrates was religious because even upon his death Socrates believed that God was all knowing because he said he was going to die and the people he was addressing were going to live- which was better? Only God knows. However, it is arguable as to whether Socrates actually believed in gods or just spirits.

Plato on the other hand, dealt with all things divine and transcendental beings. Plato followed much of the work of Socrates and was under his guidance. Most of Plato’s work is attributed to the help of Socrates. Plato would rather embrace a possible good than to avoid a certain evil. I have to ponder about this point often. Why would want to embrace a good thing that is ONLY possible but not guaranteed rather than avoid a certain evil? I suppose by embracing the potential good you are somewhat assured that you will stumble upon that good eventually. I guess its like that quote goes: "reach for the moon and if you fall you'll land among the stars." So if you surround yourself with positive energy in a quest for the possible good it will eventually come to you. However, avoiding a certain evil does not guarantee that another evil will not fall upon you. So maybe I do agree with Plato on this.

Socrates’ overall philosophy consisted of numerous points. Here are a few key points I found to be noteworthy. One point he makes is “the most blameworthy ignorance is to believe that one knows what one does not know”. Wow I think everyone on the entire planet must be guilty of this ignorance at one point or another. How many times have you heard someone speak about a topic that they have no clue about? It reminds me of my father when he talks about politics. It makes me laugh because he doesn't have the basics of how diplomacy works. He thinks you can just go into politics and do whatever you want. Socrates argues that by examining the world around you, other people and oneself to be the very essence of philosophy. I find that to be the very essence of life. Take a look around you. See all the beauty there is to see. Learn about those around you. This is advice that I can give but I can't easily take. I am writing this blog because I am feeling a bit inspired to actually start living my life....yes at 21. I feel like I have so much to examine and learn. Other injustices that one can commit in the eyes of Socrates that I have found interesting is fearing death and believing there is no God. It is none of my business if someone doesn't believe in God but I have to many reasons TO believe in God. I am not criticizing those who are non-believers but I do find it something that I just cannot agree with. I have many friends that are atheist and we discuss how since you can not see God's presence he must not exist and that is where I just have to change the conversation because it comes down to a matter of how you feel inside. Its a personal choice. Other injustices include believing one is not wise when in fact one is wise. This is something I need to learn. I guess I am committing an injustice in the eyes of Socrates. I would not call myself wise but I also have to learn that I am not stupid. I believe that everyone has there own area of knowledge; their own forte or expertise.

On the other hand, Augustine though of things as more black and white. God serves as the vital basis of good. God did not create anything evil or sinful. Everyday norms today such as creating a child out of wedlock and living with the opposite sex caused turmoil within Augustine because of his concept of what was evil and good. Augustine continuously questioned what was evil and what was good. To Augustine there was only one God who created all things good. So one of the things that Augustine questioned was if there is only one God then who created the devil and furthermore, where does evil come from?

Augustine sought to find where evil came from by asking several questions. Maybe God did not create evil but he created lesser goods. To him, this option did not suffice because creation was made by the Creator therefore, it is also good. His second question asks if God created something that had some sort of evil that was never morphed into good. Augustine wisely and rightfully so ruled out this question as well because God is all knowing. He knows everything that is going on at every second in a minute. He knows what is going to happen before it even happens. By asking all these questions, Augustine is following Socrates’ notions of living an examined life. I believe that evil is what happens when a moment of weakness occurs. I believe that evil exists because we give into temptations that are around us.
Augustine continues on to argue that evil must be removed from God then. We believe in evil and evil doings because they are not a part of what God created. They are at variance from other things. In my interpretation this means that evil exists when God is not around; when his presence is not felt. Augustine takes it a step further to say that there is an absence of God due to the presence of evil. Although, in my opinion, I believe that there is a God who allows the opportunity of evil to present itself as a way of testing the faith of those who claim to follow Him. However, I have to wonder this: If evil is present when God is not around then who created good? Augustine, in my opinion is saying that there is no good; only evil. However, if only evil exists then how can it be that there are rules and punishments or consequences for such evil? If God created only good things evil can still exist but it does not have to mean God created it. It simply means that someone deviated off that good path. This is a point Socrates makes by saying mortal sins were created. God may have not created evil but he created humans who are a product of the environment they live in and therefore, compelled to sin.

Augustine must be arguing then that to have these variances of other things such as evil and evil doings then humans are evil from birth. Evil is something that is not taught; it is not a product of environment. Rather he is saying it is within all of us from when we were born. For instance, Augustine considers it a sin when a baby cries. A baby does not know the learned teachings of right and wrong. Maybe Augustine is saying that all humans no matter how young do in fact know right from wrong because it is inside of them from birth; it is not something that can be taught or learned. Socrates also believed that certain acts equated to evil and sinning. Humans, however, inherently know right from wrong.

Augustine goes on to continue with the concept of good and evil. For him God only created mortal sins. Augustine believes that evil can be an actual event that we fear or evil can be in the act of fearing. Even though Augustine keeps shifting from good and evil and if they do in fact exist, his argument keeps reverting to the lack of God due to the presence of evil. He states falsehood which is another form of evil is “nothing but the supposed existence of something which has no being”

Clearly, for Socrates and Augustine, God is all knowing. He is the creator of all things good. However, for Socrates good is objective; it is meant to be discovered within each person. Augustine believes in a similar notion however it is not as rigid as Socrates’ ideals. Unlike Socrates and Plato, Augustine believed that it was defined. Things such as crying as a baby or living with someone whom you are not married to out of wedlock were sins. They were these defined acts of evil. I agree that good is objective and so is evil. I believe that God's presence allows for good to attempt to prevail over evil but since God's presence is not felt, evil sometimes occurs because of the temptation that exists due to most humans being products of their environment and not questioning what is around them.