Socrates and Philosophy

The philosopher that I think is on the best path in his philosophical endeavors is Socrates. He was a very pragmatic person, and kept himself occupied with concerns of ordinary life, rather than all of the strange unearthly questions. He was concerned about things that seemed like they could have an answer to them. Strangely enough, he found no answers. Socrates insight was that he knew absolutely nothing. Although this seems like a humble statement, it is hard to be too sure with Socrates if this was indeed humility, or some form of arrogance. It is, in fact a much more bold statement than it seems to be. It would seem that it is impossible to not know anything. After all, everybody knows their name, they could look at the sky and say, "The sky is blue." However, are we really sure of what our name really is, or that the sky actually is blue? I find that Socrates' argument is a very fascinating one.

His argument consisted of three different steps. First, Socrates would seek out his victim. This victim would claim to have knowledge on a certain subject. Socrates, who is very interested in hearing from somebody who knows something, and hoping to one day have knowledge, is eager to learn. The first step is the claim that Socrates knows nothing about the subject of the question, therefore he claims ignorance. Next, the person whom he is speaking to claims to have knowledge of the subject. Socrates is now interested in what the person has to say, knowing that the other also knows nothing. Socrates then picks apart the other's statement. He breaks the opponent's statement down word by word, and then continues to disprove the other's knowledge of each and every one of these words. So now, not only is the other being proven not to know what he is trying to prove knowledge of, but he has just been proven to know absolutely nothing. And in the end his opponent claims ignorance on the subject, as well.

Although claiming ignorance just so happens to be Socrates' strongpoint, I think that it is also the weakness in Socrates' philosophy. Part of philosophy is trying to gain knowledge of life, yet Socrates finds no knowledge, and disproves the knowledge of all of the others. If knowledge was never achieved, then philosophy would find itself at a dead end. I could not do anything to strengthen his philosophy, because I personally think it is truly genius. However, I suppose some slight altercations could be made to bring some knowledge to his philosophy. I think certain things, like what I've previously stated such as our own names and the names of certain colors are things we actually do know. However, when we break down these different parts of language and give them definitions that are true, they would eventually add up and mix together to compose larger bits of knowledge and so on. Eventually, the claim that all people are ignorant, or that all people know nothing, would be disproved.

My contribution to philosophy would first off be made with regards to the heavy use of technology. Technology has been rapidly 'evolving' over the last century and in my opinion this is something to be taken seriously and should be feared. The scariest thing about technology is that now it does not seem like a luxury, but something that is absolutely necessary for living in a nation like the United States. While technology is thriving all over the globe, there are other countries that continue to fall further behind. For instance, I sometimes see programs to bring computers to third world countries, and I have a very hard time in seeing what good that would do for a nation full of poverty, hunger, and war.

Technology forces man to rely upon a lifeless network of something that may make things more convenient for them, but brings very little good to them. Things such as television and computers keep man from learning about his true surroundings that have been present for thousands of years. A human being could not discover his or herself through the usage of a box with a screen. These days it seems as if television is only a mechanism used to quickly spread the demoralization of the human race as we know it. It is used more often than not to burn sexuality, violence, and other immoral activities through our retinas and into our brains, while human beings sit and eat their microwaveable TV dinners on their couches and grow weak.

If that television was taken away, if that microwave was taken away, what on earth would that person do? Would they sit and starve? Would they stare at a wall? It would also be a terrible shame if man had to resort to going through the trouble of writing on a piece of paper, folding it, stuffing it into an envelope, and dropping it into a box about 20 feet from their front door. Who knows where this human race would be if they could not make a phone call or receive one while they were driving or being a guest in another's home?

I look back about seven or eight years as we approached the year 2000. I remember the scares, the panic, and the tragic predictions of a life without computers. I observed news channels which broadcasted people build shelters and stock up on bottled water, canned food, and other things as if the world was literally coming to an end. Even if the computers happened to malfunction and quit working, I do not see why such drastic measures were needed. After all, man has lived for thousands of years before the creation of many different technological commodities. The truly scary thing to ask ourselves is, "Could we still live without these things?" And the unfortunate answer to that question is that I really do not know. It's almost as if the human race has already adapted to such an environment within the last half of the century.

Another problem I see with technology is the communication. As we progress into the future we find ourselves "not having enough time" to formally meet with people, or do things in a more personable manner. We are learning to see one another in this box known as a computer or a television. Myspace, for example, is something that is quickly spreading across the world. Rather than meeting actual people, many people have adapting to staying at home and 'meeting' these people online, based upon their descriptions and photographs. People's skills in communication face to face with people will begin to diminish.

With my philosophy, I would now have to reject the idea of the survival of the fittest. I may be taking this to an extreme, and I am definitely looking forward a great deal of time. I feel that if people do not begin to come back in contact with nature, and teach their children to learn how the world was meant to be, rather than pulling them from the cribs and into a computer chair, that this human race could quickly diminish. This is because I believe that in this journey toward the peak of technology, the fittest will first die off. Only the technologically savvy will reign over this planet, and when technology comes to a sudden crash, those who are still living will not know how to live in a world where they are forced to live as the animals that they truly are.