[a little context] Earlier today Cornel West tweeted: “Socraticism and Christianity: At the end of the day you have to choose.” Without too much thought I retweeted his comment, and in response to this retweet I was asked by a friend if I agreed with Mr. West (because, if you don’t already know retweeting should not be taken as a sign of automatic agreement with the content of the tweet you choose to recycle). But I digress. I am certain that my friend’s question deserves more reflection then I can give it at the moment; however, since I believe this is an issue that does carry with it quite substantial worldview implications I thought I would take a moment to provide a thoughtful response (or at least as thoughtful as I can afford to be this afternoon).
[my answer] My short answer to this question is: yes. Now let me make a humbling admission… I did not even know what the formal definition of Socraticism was when I first saw Mr. West’s tweet, so I had to look it up (so don’t feel bad if you had to do the same). The fact of the matter is, as I have come to find out, Socraticism is not a term that gets too much play even among philosophers. It may be defined as Socrates’ doctrine of intellectualism. You might say that it is the brand of epistemology associated the intellectual methodology of the Greek philosopher Socrates, which centered on asking questions in order to arrive at universal definitions of concepts such as courage, justice, etc. Now, for the reason that I agree with Mr. West’s assertion that you have to choose between Socraticism and Christianity… I agree because Socraticism contends that knowledge is sufficient for excellence—that a person will do what is right or best as a result of understanding what is right or best. Ergo, right knowledge = right action, and that right knowledge is in fact all that is necessary for right action. This contention is incompatible with Christianity. Why? Because, Christianity contends that it is not for lack of right knowledge or good information that humanity’s actions lack goodness, rather it asserts that humanity is unable to carry out truly good actions by virtue of its inherent depravity (see Rom 3:9-10, 18; 14:23 / Eph 2:1-5a / Col. 2:13).
Thus, it is not for lack for right information but virtue of sin that humanity does not do what is good. I recognize that the word “good” has a broad range of meanings; however, I use it in a restricted (and biblical) sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good. The testimony of Scripture is not that humanity has the natural inclination to carry what is good and right and only requires the right information to do so; rather it is that apart from the redeeming work of God the natural inclination of the human heart is universally sinful. So, that is the reason I say yes.
[disclaimer] All of this being said, I should note that the Socratic method has great value but as a comprehensive epistemological view it possesses anthropological implications that are divergent from historic Christian confession.
I welcome anyone who has thoughts on this subject to keep the conversation going… I am admittedly not an expert on Socraticism, so if you are speak-up.
