Inspired by Matthew Allison
Nothing is simple, but to believe things are simple we might be incentivized to believe Socrates is just teaching us a method.
We speak often of the Socratic Method, which I have discussed and critiqued elsewhere, and I would like to draw attention to how this emphasis on “method” has distracted us from what for me is an important point of how and why Socrates speaks: he is trying to show us that not even the most basic of statements are simple. If we say, “Today was a good day,” it can be asked, “What do we mean by ‘good?’ ” Yes, this can seem tedious and difficult, but the point is valid: things that strike us as “self-evident” and of no need of explaining aren’t “self-evident” and do need explaining, and if we don’t think this we might be notably susceptible to manipulation and control, whether by a zeitgeist or a “strong man.”
The “Socratic Method” should more so be understood as a “Socratic Embodiment” (as I’ve argued), but we also really need to not primarily see Socrates as teaching us a “method,” which in my view has come to be seen as teaching us “how to debate.” “Debate” is problematic to emphasize for a number of reasons (expanded on in “Discussion vs Debate,” Episode #50), and furthermore to suggest that Socrates is a “master debater” is to profoundly impoverish his project. Similarly, if we suggest that Derrida “just wanted to reduce everything to mere interpretation,” this is also a great problem, for Derrida instead simply wanted us to understand that there is no such thing as “simply reading,” that we are “always already” engaged in something complex like interpretation. Why this is important is that, like Socrates, Derrida is helping us understand that nothing is simple: even when it comes to the word “cat,” that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
Socrates helps us understand that we are “always already” doing something that isn’t simple. Yes, the raw apprehension of “a phenomenon-that-is-a-cat” can be simple (as described in “On Typography” by O.G. Rose), but the idea of what a “cat is” can’t be simple. By “simple,” I mean something we “just fully get” and/or “something that doesn’t require multiple parts” (or “extension”), and we can certainly apprehend that “a cat is a cat” without referring to anything beyond the apprehension. But if I try to define “what is a cat,” then I must refer to definitions, colors, parts, etc. — all of which are extensions and hence complex. Ideas versus apprehensions cannot be simple, for they are always extensions: to define one idea, I must refer to another, and then I must refer to another — on and on. But an apprehension doesn’t have to refer to anything but itself; yes, if I try to understand in terms of ideas the apprehension, then it will become complex, but I don’t have to engage in this intellectual act. If I’m happy seeing the cat and moving on, that’s all well and good.
The trouble with acting as if “things are simple” is that we can make the mistake of treating “ideas” like “apprehensions,” which is an understandable mistake because we initially apprehend ideas when we hear them. We get (a sense of) their meaning, and so it seems like the work is done. But ideas aren’t really even ideas if we stay in that apprehension, but instead just notions: to make ideas really ideas, we must understand them, but the moment we do that we are no longer dealing with something simple but something complex and extended. And in this way, there is no such thing as “simple, understood ideas,” only “simple notions,” and Socrates can help us understand that notions are not even really notions, for they shatter upon examination. Is this nihilistic deconstruction? It can seem that way, but actually in Socrates deconstructing simple notions (logical contradictions) for the sake of complex ideas, Socrates opens us up to a less judgmental, more dynamic, and fuller life.
To mention Belonging Again, where “givens” are shared, then perhaps the mistake of conflating “apprehension” with “understanding” is less consequential, because it is more likely that the majority of people around us will “just happen to share understanding.” In this way, perhaps it’s fair to say that before Pluralism and Globalization, thinking and understanding were “practically simpler” even if they were not “technically simpler,” simply because we did not readily encounter the diversity which ascribing to “simplicity” could prove problematic, totalitarian, and oppressive. In a diverse world, many people have many ideas of what constitutes “simple,” and so that too will suggest why it is not so easy as to simply say, “It’s simple.” Whose “simplicity,” after all?
Because of the ease of “apprehension,” it can perhaps feel like “understanding” ought to be simple, that we shouldn’t have to go to so much trouble to understand, but the more Pluralistic the world becomes the clearer it will be the case that things aren’t so simple (only having had the luxury of “practically” being able to act as such), but if we still feel like they “ought” to be, then we might turn against Pluralism and prove pathological. Furthermore, we have good reason to be skeptical of philosophy given how “The Intellectual Class” has manipulated society in its favor (as described by Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson, for example), and indeed Hume teaches us that philosophy is dangerous — unfortunately, philosophy can only be dealt with through philosophy or a “closed mindedness” which can make us oppressive and susceptible to manipulation. On this point, we should note that ideology and power might want us to think that “it’s simple,” for if we believe things are simple and ideology and power define what constitutes that “simplicity,” we will be easier to control.
There are problematic ways to “make life complex” which ultimately remove us from “common life,” make us feel superior to others, help us avoid commitment — we should not assume that “making life complex” is necessarily a virtue, but we are also in error if we act as if life doesn’t require us to think through it. This is the mistake of the fundamentalist, which can also be seen in the nihilist who sees no point to thinking but self-congratulations, for though thinking and philosophy can be self-congratulatory, they are also necessary for self-defense, which is perhaps philosophy’s most important role (again, power might want us to believe philosophy is meaningless, which brings to mind the stress of thinkers like Marcuse on how philosophy is in the business of critique). In this way, we can say that thinking is complex precisely so that living can be simple. Life isn’t simple, but living can be if philosophy bears the complexity.
Strangely, that simplicity forces us to judge “what is simple,” while complexity doesn’t require judgment, just acknowledgment. In fact, complexity can be more humble than simplicity, precisely because we don’t know and can’t know everything. Simplicity on the other hand, which can present itself as humble and more focused on “things that really matter,” can ironically end up far more judgmental, for who decides “what is simple” and what is not? In Socrates helping us to see that nothing is simple, a man who was executed for running society and corrupting the young was easily in the business of creating the conditions of humility and non-judgmentalism in which friendship and community could thrive.
Where simplicity is emphasized and a community is erected around it, that community then might defend that “simplicity” from “outside” and invasive complexity, and it will then have an incentive to create an ethic and ideology around preserving that simplicity and not thinking about it. The doctrine of simplicity will also set boundaries on what work can be done, for we shouldn’t engage in projects and work which fail to “keep it simple.” At the same time, there can also be an incentive for the community to spread so that more people “keep it simple” and “focus on what really matters,” which means the community engages in limiting thought, limiting action, and growing. Unfortunately, this might be a recipe for cults and other very problematic political action.
Yes, where nothing is simple, we might be incentivized to create societies of “Philosopher Kings” who run and organize our lives because “things are too complex for average people to handle,” but on the other hand the deconstruction of simplicity could lead a society that is more thoughtful, more dynamic in its actions, and not so sure of itself in efforts to spread and grow (leading to a constructive humility which is good for Pluralistic Democracy). Socrates does not necessarily lead us to a small political system, but we could, and more importantly Socrates gives us the tools for “deconstructing simplicity,” which then makes possible communities and fellowship which orbit around Beauty, Truth, Goodness, and other Mysteries which make life worth living (as D.C. Schindler discusses with Ken Lowry).
We can associate philosophy with hurting and deconstructing relationships and our sense of “what matters,” and perhaps academic philosophy traditionally taught can be rightly assessed of this mistake. But we should not see all philosophy as necessarily falling into this mistake. In fact, what we see in Socrates is easily a call to engage in the only way to make fellowship and friendship possible (as Allan Bloom suggests at the end of The Closing of the American Mind). In reducing Socrates to a mere “method” versus an “awakening” or “realization,” we’ve removed from us what is needed for community in the deepest sense. Furthermore, believing “everything is simple,” we do not engage in practices that help us “locate” ourselves and our values in a proper order or proper place in our lives.
As I discussed with Matthew Allison, much of metaphysics seems to be about us learning to “properly locate” the Apophatic and Mysterious (we learn that we should “locate” things more than “respond” to them). If we fail to locate Mystery, we might fall into the Ever-Meta, but what I mean by this will have to explained in my talk with Matthew. Anyway, the point is that everything in life that we take seriously likely has truth to it, such as the idea that “life is simple.” But where do we locate this premise? Does it mean that thinking is simple, that there is no need to engage in philosophy? Perhaps it means that (we’d have to think about it), but maybe we need to have “complex thinking” precisely so that we can live simple lives? What if “depth of thought” is necessary to maintain “life as simple?” This is a point I would associate with David Hume, who defended “common life” and taught me to see philosophy as “self-defense,” and what we see here is reason to think that part of “self-defense” is learning where to properly “locate” in our lives premises which are true but might prove wrong or very problematic when located wrongly (a point that suggests Augustine’s emphasis on “ordering”).
As I discussed with Matthew Allison, much of metaphysics seems to be about us learning to “properly locate” the Apophatic and Mysterious (we learn that we should “locate” things more than “respond” to them). If we fail to locate Mystery, we might fall into the Ever-Meta, but what I mean by this will have to explained in my talk with Matthew. Anyway, the point is that everything in life that we take seriously likely has truth to it, such as the idea that “life is simple.” But where do we locate this premise? Does it mean that thinking is simple, that there is no need to engage in philosophy? Perhaps it means that (we’d have to think about it), but maybe we need to have “complex thinking” precisely so that we can live simple lives? What if “depth of thought” is necessary to maintain “life as simple?” This is a point I would associate with David Hume, who defended “common life” and taught me to see philosophy as “self-defense,” and what we see here is reason to think that part of “self-defense” is learning where to properly “locate” in our lives premises which are true but might prove wrong or very problematic when located wrongly (a point that suggests Augustine’s emphasis on “ordering”).
It is true that “humans need love,” but if we locate the truth that “humans need love” in an assumption that “humans should spend time with one another,” then we can interpret those who spend time alone as being unloving. It is true that “reading is good,” but if we locate that truth in the premise that “the Bible is the only book worth reading,” then we will live our lives believing “it is good to only read the Bible,” which might lead to trouble. It is true that “economies are good,” but if we locate that truth in the premise that “corporations are more important than small businesses,” then we can believe that “a good economy is one in which corporations survive over small businesses.” And on and on — there are many things which are “true” that become problematic when mislocated and mis-ordered, and the very fact that things and experiences “do not tell us” how they should be “ordered” suggests the necessity of thinking and philosophy (especially if things have a natural tendency toward “mis-ordering,” as some religions claim).
In Socrates helping us realize that “nothing is simple,” Socrates can loosen and free our minds to think in terms of “complexity” and “location,” of which we must prove capable of doing it seems if we are to prove capable of friendship and community. Though claiming that “things are simple” might seem to help us focus on relationships, family, and people, this is easily an act of mis-location that will keep us from enjoying “the simple lives” which we may genuinely seek to live. Where we mis-locate, even if we are dealing with truths, we could enact them as problems, problems we may not have training in thinking and complexity to address.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.
