No list of great thinkers of the Western World could possibly elide Socrates. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Socrates fundamental convictions included:
- human wisdom begins with the recognition of one’s own ignorance
- the unexamined life is not worth living
- ethical virtue is the only thing that matters
Those, even from a Torah perspective, are laudable ideals. It is widely accepted that the trial that led to his conviction and execution was politically motivated. Socrates challenged the status quo -- not with weapons, but with ideas. Socrates lectured in public to get people to open their minds and think. As far as his actual execution, this is how Google Gemini phases it:
Socrates' execution, while controversial, elevated his status as a martyr for philosophy and intellectual freedom. He chose death over exile or compromise, solidifying his legacy as a symbol of unwavering commitment to truth and reason.
He certainly is admirable, and that assessment has stood the test of time. I recently became aware of Socrates' triple filter test for whether or not to accept or even listen a report about someone else:
- The first filter is truth. Are you absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?
- The second filter, the filter of goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend something that’s good?
- The third filter, the filter of usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my friend going to be useful for me?
Socrates concluded: If what you want to say is not verifiably true (either you saw it yourself or you have investigated and found reliable evidence), not something good about the other person, not useful to me or the other person... then why do you want to say it?
Not bad! When I first heard this, I thought about our own rules about לשון הרע/slander and רכילות/gossip. Sefer Chafetz Chaim (on which I give a weekly shiur -- let me know if you would like to join) lists five rules/filters that need to be passed to allow saying something. The three of Socrates, plus these additional two:
- Could the same benefit be realized without having to say the לשון הרע/slander or רכילות/gossip?
- Is the would-be speaker acting out of pure motives? He only wants to protect and help; he has no personal grudge against the person one whose behavior he would like to report.
The first of those speaks to how profoundly we want to avoid negative speech. After all, the ability to speak is the trait that distinguishes us from the animals. Speech, therefore, is something holy. The last "filter" means that even if the other four are solid, this person cannot be the one to make the report. Harboring resentment or hatred against another Jew is just too powerful to allow any expression at all.
Let's take one more step: Among the nations, only a Socrates is expected to live up to such lofty standards. For Klal Yisrael, on the other hand, these are not considered lofty standards, these are הלכה למעשה -- rules by which even the most simple Jew lives.
Every morning, even knowing that the nations can produce a Socrates, I am so proud and inspired to be a member of Klal Yisrael and to sincerely thank the Creator שלא עשני גוי.
Comments