I am interested in Socrates' and Crito's discussion of concerning themselves with only what is true, and not what the masses believe to be so. While of course something is not true just because people believe it is, and there should always be an emphasis on people reevaluating their preconceived notions of the world, to what extant should the larger population's opinions and "truths" be ignored? To some extant, reality is created, either by individuals, or by groups of people to form a culture. Even the reality of Socrates, as we all know, is created to an extant by the people who knew him in his life or wrote about him many years later.
I am a little concerned that Socrates' focus on truth, and not the hoi polloi, sets up an early example of an intellectual ivory tower, where people who think they have a better understanding of how to determine what is true alienate others and indirectly invalidate their experiences and intelligence. I think this is especially relevant given the current political climate and societal stratification, where everyone has access to different "facts" and almost no capability to find rhetorical common ground.
Should there be more of a pursuit to understand the truths of other people, even if they are not factually correct? And what role do people who have access to better, more accurate information have in spreading that knowledge in a way free of condescension and any sort of political or moral agenda?
A couple of points:
ReplyDeleteThe 'hoi' in the term "hoi polloi" is the definite article (masculine, plural, nominative), so strictly speaking "The hoi polloi" is redundant. Just thought we needed a little more pedantry here.
Second, it is confusing to speak of other people's truths if what they believe is false. Perhaps a better way to frame your point is that it is respectful to pay attention to others' perspectives, even when they are mistaken about the facts. Socrates is in fact very good at this; he does not assume that he knows and that others are mistaken -- quite the opposite. So this is emphatically not ivory tower arrogance, but honest, aporetic inquiry that follows the best available argument where it leads, on the basis of the best available evidence. It is not that we should disregard the views of the many because they are the many; it is that we should pay attention to those who think for themselves, reason carefully, and want to learn (not just to win).