The truth of this statement
appears from the fact that men disagree and contend with one another about
justice, some saying that it is here, others that it is there.
Yet about things of which men
have knowledge there is no difference of opinion, as for example about white
and black, or hot and cold, or soft and hard, but all think the same about them
and use the same words.
In just the same way they would
agree about justice if they knew what it was, but in their very lack of
agreement they reveal their ignorance.
Indeed I am inclined to think
that you are not far from such ignorance yourself, and you ought therefore more
than anyone else to concern yourself with this knowledge, the more disgraceful
it is for a king than for a private citizen to be ignorant about justice.
The
claim of skepticism, that nothing can really be known, and the claim of
relativism, that all opinions are equally true, seem to be quite prevalent among
my generation, and so I find that I can hardly have a conversation about any
matter of importance without having to confront these bugbears.
I leave
aside, for the moment, the fact that these can hardly be consistent statements,
as they reduce to the contradictions that it is certain that nothing is
certain, and that everything both is and is not the case. No, I wonder what motivation
could stand behind the embrace of a model that denies any shared meaning, and
thereby removes the possibility of a greater accountability.
Perhaps
I have already answered my own question?
If
nothing can be known, then there will be no objective foundation for judgments
of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong. If anything goes, sound principles
will be replaced by mere subjective preferences. I may insist that something is
good because I desire it, and I no longer consider that I should desire it
because it is good.
It isn’t
necessarily that I wish to be unreasonable, but that I do not wish to be
responsible to anyone or anything else. It becomes an excuse for convenience
over character. When I deny any facts, I no longer have any duties. Now it’s
all about me, going on the ultimate
ego trip.
I may
think this is some sort of freedom, but it is rather a prison of the self. By
closing myself to what is real, I have made myself a slave to my passions, to
how it feels for only me.
It is
ignorance that stands behind the fracturing of the true and the good, and it is
wisdom that can restore the unity of things. The philosopher strives to see
things are they are, and not simply as he wishes to see them. He then learns
that he shares his own nature with all of his fellows, and that we all live in
the same world, ordered by a single Nature.
When
someone tells me that there is no such thing as virtue, or that justice cannot
be defined, it will do me no good to become dismissive or angry. He says this
because he has not looked beyond his own impressions, and I can hardly claim to
know any better if I do not look beyond my own impressions. What might I do to
show him what we have in common, instead of harping on all the differences? If
he sees me only demanding what I desire, will it be any wonder that he then
thinks of justice only by demanding what he desires?
It is
tragic when we see someone deny a standard of giving people their proper due,
because he does not distinguish between what is good and bad for all of human
nature. It is even more tragic when we see a leader deny such a standard, since
his very calling should be to guide us in living together.
Did I
just notice Musonius calling out the Syrian king for being a bit confused about
what it means to be fair? I do believe I did! Well, we would hardly want a king
who is ignorant of justice, who confuses opinion with knowledge, now would we?
Written in 9/1999
No comments:
Post a Comment