Salieri

Can Philosophy Save The Middle East? Examining the Socratic aretē & sophrosynē in Palestine-Israel

December 2023

Abstract

In this essay, I explain what philosophy should be like from the Socratic Tradition and examine the possibility of the existence of any possible True and Valuable philosophy in the Middle East, specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For that, I use The Apology of Socrates to discuss four critical points: 1. Audience. 2. What to Care about? 3. How to Care? 4. Why to care about it? Finally, I switch my discussion to Palestine, where I use Carlos Fraenkel's book on teaching Plato in Palestine to discuss the possibility of Philosophy in Palestine, and I use Sari Nusseibeh as my prime example of a possible philosophical figure. The essay will mainly try to answer the following thesis question: "Can Socratic Philosophy as a way of life save the Middle East?"

Introduction

A well-known characteristic in the study of philosophy is that it endeavors to encompass almost every aspect of human understanding. Paradoxically, there are two essential features of the discipline that, even within the discipline itself, there is no actual consensus: The ability to define itself and articulate its ultimate goal. Recently, I have been contemplating this idea on the purpose of philosophy, prompted by the 2023 Israeli-Hamas war. Despite the various definitions and perspectives, there seems to be an enduring weightiness in the region. Whether one considers it from a place without incidents or within its tumultuous reality, the Middle East consistently grapples with complex conflicts, internal or external, defying simple characterization. I assume it might be tempting for Western societies to dismiss the region as perpetually troubled. I find it imperative to reflect on the significance of social sciences in fostering societal well-being.

Social sciences, in their various disciplines, fundamentally explore what it means to be human. They serve as a lens through which we attempt to understand ourselves—our actions, concerns, and values. Philosophy, as the main mother of all those sciences, should always maintain this quality. Despite that, whenever we try to look at conflicts in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, we rarely see a true academic philosopher interfering and sharing the revelations of Apollo with the world, despite the fact that all my personal philosophical journeys have been very deeply connected to all what is personal, individual, and collective, establishing itself by itself on myself. One exemplary instance of philosophy establishing itself independently, disregarding the need for some or extensive background knowledge, is found in the Platonic texts. These texts delve into fundamental questions of life, such as what is justice, how can we know what is true, and the pursuit of a virtuous existence, all narrated by Plato and acted by the father of Western philosophy, Socrates, who endeavors to establish and defend his philosophy in works like "The Apology," in which I consider a true work that shows why should anyone commit to their philosophy as a way of life and a mode of thinking till their last mortal breath.

While Socrates stands out as a heroic figure committed to his ideas, history reveals that he was not alone in sacrificing himself for his personal philosophical beliefs. Many individuals throughout the ages, including those in the Middle East, have similarly devoted themselves to ideologies, sometimes resulting in some sort of sacrifice driven by a multitude of validities. In this essay, we focus specifically on the most famous contrasting ideologies in the Middle East—Israel's belief in the right to return and its philosophy concerning the Jewish question and the right to exist, juxtaposed with the Palestinians' right to the land and the right to resist. Both philosophies harbor motivations and reasons that may be deemed valid or not, depending on one's perspective.

In the ongoing debates surrounding these ideologies, a decades-old question arises: who is right? While answers from both sides would have their own logic, there is almost zero True and Valuable discussion happening, making it, in the most tediously progressive way, a question that must be answered from a neutral point of view, knowing that on the actual grounds of the war that there is no place for that. Our primary concern in this essay is to connect the concept of philosophy as a way of life to these ideologies. We aim to explore whether philosophy can offer a True and Valuable contribution to the enduring challenges that have plagued the Middle East for an extended period. By True and Valuable, terms that I have been addressing in this introduction and will keep addressing for the rest of this essay, I mean a philosophy that is relevant to the suffering human being. While it is extremely important to address questions like what is the nature of things-in-themselves or the contradistinctions of different qualias, here, I define True and Valuable as a philosophy that is relevant, in the most instinctive way, to the agonizing Middle Eastern, a phenomenological question about being.

The Death of Socrates

In one of the earliest Socratic dialogues, we are presented with the Apology of Socrates, a text that addresses the trial of Socrates, where he's been convicted for some charges in the presence of the jury of the people of Athens. The accusations range from accusing him of being a physicalist to not believing in the Gods of Athens or corrupting the youth. While the discussion of these accusations is important to realize the significance of the Socratic dialectic and how he converses with his interlocutors, I find it more important to look at the beginning and the end of the dialogue, where Socrates first addresses himself to the people of Athens and, in the end, after he's been convicted of death.

Let us here start from the end: conviction of death, as it is of great importance to the Socratic way of life. There are three main points Socrates addresses before he meets his demise. The first is a general reflection on who he was during his life. The second is the mere absolute acceptance of death itself, and the third is the idea of himself as a concept, solidifying Socrates as more of a conceptual idea rather than a person. Socrates mentions his friend, Chaerephon, who went to the oracle of Delphi to ask her about who is the wisest living human, and the Oracle of Delphi responds by saying that the wisest person is Socrates (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 21e). Socrates is shocked by that answer because he does not consider himself wise. A lot of academic discussions have been made on this topic, namely Socratic Ignorance. But mainly, there is this very important point that Cooper addresses in his book, where he says, "But how can anyone, with all the limitations there manifestly are on human intelligence and individual human experience, ever be confident that they have already fully considered and found good reason to reject every possible challenge? Or how can they know that any remaining, so far unconsidered, ones could immediately upon presentation be turned aside on the basis of adequate reasons already found among those on the basis of which they have become confident of the idea in question? In fact, how could one be absolutely sure (given one's current state of belief) that no unheralded future experience of one's own or others, or some unfamiliar situation for a decision, could possibly provide what one ought rationally to consider, even if only for a moment, to be an acceptable basis for doubting the truth of some cherished belief?" (Cooper, 2012, 49) This is a very important observation about the fact that Socrates, despite devoting his entire life to philosophical inquiry, cannot be sure 100%, based on his limited human experience, that what he knows is absolutely true under any circumstance and under any unfamiliar situation. For a moment, this could appear as the rather trivial idea that is now regarded as common sense, but it is different when we try to look at it from the perspective of philosophy as a way of life because every day, we wake up with the frequent notion that some things we know are taken for granted, such as the idea that we are who we are, and what we, the people, know will remain the same, and the fact of the universe will remain the same. Based on that, we can act confidently based on a certain experience. However, for Socrates, all of that is a bit uncertain and should be considered with a grain of salt, for no human knowledge is absolute—neither the one that is given to us by tradition, by values, by family, by society, nor by religion. All of these pieces of information should be put under the lens of the examining eye all the time, for no one should claim that they know anything for certain. This is a fundamental observation about Socrates' character, his search for two main fundamental qualities in human existence, which are wisdom and truth (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 29e)—a wisdom that can never be attained and a truth that can always be refined. For Socrates, the process itself is what is more important. Secondly, the idea that Socrates was very accepting of his death to the extent that you could perceive him as somehow suicidal or nihilistic in his pursuit of life. But it was never his goal; for Socrates, life itself is a mere vessel to try to reach all that he can from the human wisdom and truth that are incompatible with the divine ones. Socrates recognizes that he does not know whether that is good or bad, and no one does. However, he thinks death is one of either two scenarios—it's either deep eternal sleep or he would go back and converse with that in order to reach more truth and wisdom in the afterlife (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 28d–29d). And from here, we go to the third idea where Socrates says to the people a third important thing: "There will be more people to test you, whom I now held back, but you did not notice it. They will be more difficult to deal with as they will be younger, and you will resent them more. You are wrong if you believe that by killing people, you will prevent anyone from reproaching you for not living in the right way." (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 39d) Socrates believes that his entire philosophy, his entire life, was not just devoted to the idea of searching for truth, will, and wisdom but to make others do the same thing, inspiring people. Socrates is no longer a person who is going to die. Socrates is an idea that will continue living on in younger, smarter, and more persistent people who would want to continue Socrates' legacy. It is interesting to see that living in Socrates' most important student, the writer of this work himself, Plato, as Hadot puts it, "In order to realize his political goal, Plato thus had to make an immense detour: he had to create an intellectual and spiritual community whose job it would be to train new human beings, however long this might take. In the course of this detour, moreover, his political goals risked being forgotten, and it is interesting in this regard to hear Plato say that the philosophers will have to be forced to be kings." (Hadot, 2002, 59) The entire point of the establishment of the Academy is to train individuals into this idea of thinking and to this Socratic search for truth and wisdom to become their version of Socrates and continue on living in his legacy, immortalizing the Socratic pedagogical project.

I think it is interesting to end our discussion on the death of Socrates by mentioning one final thing Socrates himself said: "I leave you now, condemned to death by you, but they are condemned by truth to wickedness and injustice. So I maintain my assessment, and they maintain theirs. This perhaps had to happen, and I think it is as it should be." (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 39b) which is that he realizes that, in the end, his assessment and the other people's assessment, the opinions, the wisdom on life will be maintained, was meant to happen and to reach this result, was meant to be because again it completely agrees with all the previous three points that we have discussed. Socrates believes that every knowledge is temporary, and Socrates believes that everyone will continue to be an idea and should be of the previous version and the legacy, and at the same time, that he accepts death; he accepts and is happy and content that everything will be the way it is, and that discussion itself was valuable and will be valuable to generations to come. The next Socrates and the next accusers of Socrates, with generations from now, they will learn and apply it as their philosophy as a way of life in the search for their wisdom and truth.

The People of Athens

A rather significant observation about the apology of Socrates in Plato is that Socrates, much unlike medieval philosophers, early modern thinkers, and even many postmodernists or contemporary philosophers, addresses each of his sentences directly to the 'People of Athens.' It is the very first thing he starts his entire defense with, stating, "I do not know, men of Athens, how my accusers affected you; as for me, I was almost carried away in spite of myself, so persuasively did they speak." (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 17b) A prominent aspect of Socratic philosophy is its constant addression towards someone or a group, hence the term "Socratic dialogues." The address 'People of Athens' that Socrates uses throughout his apology is ironically very similar to the Abrahamic address in the Bible towards either the Israelites or in the Quran towards the entirety of the Umma or towards the people of Muhammad.

Whether the historical Socrates himself or the Socrates of Xenophon and Plato, we can see him as a prophet-like figure. It is certain that Socrates was a devout believer in his character as a civic citizen to the people of Athens and to the city itself, believing in its democratic values and in the intelligence of its people. From the apology of Plato itself, we realize that Socrates wouldn't have conducted his entire defense, addressed the people of Athens, tried to refute his accusers, and could have purely used emotional arguments to escape this, considering he was even at the age of seventy. Socrates himself admits it; if he had tried to appeal emotionally to the people of Athens, he could have easily convinced the jury and saved his life (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 38c). However, for this Socrates of Plato, the pedagogical purpose is clear. Why would he be keen on refuting Meletus, his accuser, and convincing the jury? Socrates wouldn't have done that but for his belief in teaching the people of Athens one last lesson about the importance of democracy and civic engagement. We even see him, at his last moment before death, asking the people who voted for his acquittal to come and talk with him and discuss what happened in the events of the trial after he has been sentenced to death, stating, "I should be glad to discuss what has happened with those who voted for my acquittal during the time that the officers of the court are busy and I do not yet have to depart to my death." (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 39e). This is the devotion of a man who wants absolutely the best for the people of his city, who accepts the absolute democracy of the Nation-City yet still challenges it to the most and shows where it goes wrong, challenges his accusers, and challenges the jury themselves while still wanting to teach them something. As Ober puts it, "The philosophically inclined reader assumed by Plato's texts was likely to conclude that Socrates had been wrongly convicted with respect to absolute justice. Yet Socrates had been rightfully convicted with respect to Athenian law. That is to say, the Athenian jury had made no procedural error in coming to its legal judgment. Because the trial had been legally (i.e., procedurally) correct, the decision of the court had legal standing. If the verdict had been based on the judges' acceptance of a logically flawed definition of piety, that was unfortunate, but strictly irrelevant in terms of the law" (Morrison, 2010, 148-149). Socrates was not upset; maybe we can imagine the scenario where Socrates could have gathered his supporters and tried to rebel or escape against the choices of the jury, and maybe the historical Socrates was not very content about the results of his trial. But from what we know about Plato's Socrates, he believed that a citizen could never, regardless of what he did, repay the city and fulfill his civic duty, stating, "the relationship between the citizen and polis law is characterized by Socrates as paternal and masterful (inter alia) because there is no meaningful chance of the individual citizen's repaying the debt" (Morrison, 2010, 151). From here, we can add another important characteristic to the personality of Plato's Socrates: Socrates deeply cared about the people of Athens and the nation itself.

Socrates Advises You to Care

Now, we have clearly illustrated the idea that Plato's Socrates cares about the city of Athens and the people of Athens, but why specifically at his last moments? In the Apology, Plato will subtly use Socrates to devote a lot of his dialogues not to defending himself but to instructing the idea of care. In this sense, we can lay out four important main arguments when he talks about the idea of care. We will label them as follows for the easiness of the discussion, borrowing the style of (Christiansen, 2000) and some of his observations:

There is another part where Socrates talks about his conception of what is considered the greatest evil, turning the conversation into somehow a dialogue on what you care about and what not to care about (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 30c8-30d5). But for the sake of this conversation, we will only talk about the degrees of caring epimeleisthai. From what we have discussed before in section 2, we showed that there are two great moral and virtuous things that Socrates cares about, namely Wisdom phronesis and truth.

In P1, we see Socrates differentiating between two possible types of goods: inner goods and external goods. He says that the people of Athens care more about external goods than inner goods, and he equates the pursuit of inner goods to the ideal of the excellence of the soul (aretē). For him, this aretē brings what the human would need from external goods. In P3, if one devoted their lives to the pursuit of the inner goods, and for that, he believes that what he did to the city and what he continued to do even at the trial and even at the moments before his death after his conviction was his commitment to his philosophy of life, his aretē in order to reach the excellence of his soul.

From what we see in P2, Socrates also thinks that part of the journey towards aretē is the philosophizing that he did in the city of Athens with the other citizens using the method of dialectic to convey that. Finally, it all comes together in P4, where Socrates establishes that the search for aretē is not an individual one; it is a collective duty of the society. If he cared about the external goods and prioritized them over the inner ones, he would not have benefited the people of Athens or himself. Not just that, but he mentions that this moral duty is on par with military duties toward the nation, giving the example of Achilles (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, Apology 28b9-28b6).

This dry explanation of the concept of care that Socrates presents in the apology is, from what I believe, his ultimate philosophy as a way of life, and to the average citizen of any modern nation-state, it is just very abstract and vague and hard to follow. It is the Socratic version of Kant's crux metaphysicorum but in this context, the goal would be to strive towards living a good life. But in simpler terms, we can just conclude that it is necessary to care about other people as much as you would care about the development of oneself. However, I believe it is very necessary to notice that Socrates' aretē is very limited to the people of his city, the people of Athens whom he keeps addressing all over the apology and in the other Socratic dialogues. In this moment of history, thinking about one's nation and the development of its people would only lead to something that is very narrowly nationalist. The Socratic aretē must be applied not only to the people of one's nation but to the entire communal humanity. This is the main point of our Socratic discussion, which we will come back to in our conclusion.

Thinking Amongst Conflict: Carlos Fraenkel and Sari Nusseibeh

There are two possible qualities that make Plato's Socrates in the Apology unrelatable to the normal 21st-century human despite the fact that much of what he says contains truth. These qualities are Socrates' non-exposure to globalization or beliefs outside the scope of Athens, as he only debated with Athenians. The second is Socrates' non-commitment or bias to any particular belief or faction other than whatever is governed by his philosophical method, making him, in our specific scenario, appalling to the modern Muslim, Jew, or Christian. While this might make him seem as someone who has not been exposed to the same amount of information that we have been exposed to, yet there is still a way to learn from him and gain True and Valuable philosophy.

In his book, Carlos Fraenkel talks about his experience in teaching Plato and Philosophy in Palestine, specifically at Jerusalem's Al-Quds University. He is assigned to teach a philosophy seminar with Sari Nusseibeh, a professor of philosophy there. Nusseibeh, according to Fraenkel, has a life-long question when it comes to philosophy: "Does philosophy provide a language with which people can communicate even if they do not accept each other's religious commitments? Can we say that they are able to do so because, as rational beings, they can understand and evaluate an argument without regard to the background of the one who makes it?" (Fraenkel, 2015, 7) From here, Nusseibeh has the belief that only philosophy can save the Middle East, his thesis project.

Fraenkel and Nusseibeh themselves are interesting examples from Nusseibeh's Dream. Fraenkel is of Jewish ancestry, and his paternal grandparents were German Jews who fled Nazi Germany and settled in São Paulo. Nusseibeh is a Palestinian who had everything taken from him and his family in the Nakba of 1948 and became a former representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Yet, they are assigned to teach the seminar together, and from the book, we see that there wasn't any kind of prejudice or expectation from both of them against each other. Fraenkel is excited to meet Nusseibeh and is met with a lot of troubles to achieve so due to Nusseibeh's busy schedule as the president of the university.

Fraenkel and Nusseibeh are both examples of a modern Socrates for a multitude of reasons:

Both of them are possible Socratic figures operating under the contemporary conditions of the world, always caring for the other and learning about them while examining their own beliefs and values. Hence, we see them flourish in many instances in their lives, but particularly in teaching their non-philosophy major students. (Fraenkel, 2015)

Students in Al-Quds: Between Religion, Philosophy, and Western democracies

The approach that Nusseibeh and Fraenkel took while teaching their class is very much similar to the Socratic dialectical method. They started the first class by raising critical questions and presenting counter-arguments, leaving the young students perplexed, which is exactly what they had planned. Their intention is to encourage students to think critically, not merely to absorb Dr. Carlos's words for granted. (Fraenkel, 2015, 12) This approach creates an environment of learning that is not as possible in any other discipline; only philosophy can provide this type of True and Valuable debate.

Throughout the semester, they expose their students to various philosophical beliefs and traditions, inviting answers that go beyond what they usually hear from others. They begin by reading The Apology of Socrates and discussing virtues and the Socratic necessity of examining them. Fraenkel asserts that understanding justice is crucial to behaving justly, prompting a student named Shirin to question, "Why can't we rely on the notion of justice transmitted by religion?" Fraenkel responds by asking, "Can you be sure that this notion is correct without examining it?" To make the discussion more relatable, Fraenkel walks them through standard examples from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting instances where actions claimed to be just and religiously motivated raise questions of justice. (Fraenkel, 2015, 14)

According to Fraenkel, the Socratic issue of what piety is does not mean opposing knowledge against religious tradition. Instead, Socrates encourages individuals to be certain that their professors or preachers were telling the truth when teaching the meaning of piety, justice, and other concepts. The instructors challenge certain truths taken for granted, such as the absolute validity of Sunni Islam against Shia Islam. They question the assumption and challenge students to consider the possibility that the majority can be wrong. (Fraenkel, 2015, 15)

Discussing various Islamic positions defended throughout history, from Al-Rāzī to Ibn Taymiyya, they emphasize the importance of reason in guiding human beings, referencing Al-Rāzī's philosophical autobiography where he refers to Socrates as "my Imām." The instructors also touch upon the dominance of Western "democracies" and the potential of true intellectual and cultural exchange if resources were redirected from wars to translation and dialogue. (Fraenkel, 2015, 18)

To conclude their discussion on Plato, Nusseibeh and Fraenkel explore sophrosyne, the ideal of self-restraint alongside wisdom. Nusseibeh suggests that sophrosyne could contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem by interrupting the deadly cycle of violence and promoting non-violent resistance. He envisions how, in the face of peaceful Palestinian protests, the majority of Israelis might realize the baselessness of the occupation. And would nonviolence not win the support of the entire globe for the Palestinian cause? Not everyone in the class agrees. "Isn't it legal to retaliate against violence with violence?" Why should the Israelis be allowed to get away with it?" Amin is curious. "If someone kills your child, for example, I can understand your desire for vengeance because I'd feel the same way; but that doesn't make revenge legitimate. And, if peaceful measures are more suited to achieving your aim, wouldn't wisdom urge them?" (Fraenkel, 2015, 20)

Conclusion

I cannot assert the truthfulness of Nusseibeh and Fraenkel's claims regarding non-violence, the nature of different disciplines in philosophy, or their comparison to the West. Our world is immensely complex, and true wisdom could be neither universally possible nor readily achieved. However, there is an important lesson to be learned from them, one that aligns with what we understand about what Socrates lacked. Both of these philosophers share Socrates' love of wisdom and philosophy, but due to facing much bigger and more challenging conflicts than what Socrates did, they have had to adapt to a new world. They strive to combine both aretē and sophrosyne in a struggle to achieve peace and understanding in a region where almost everyone claims to possess the absolute truth—an assertion Socrates would vehemently reject. Yet, what we glean from their lives is their teaching methodologies. In their small seminar, students unfamiliar with philosophical concepts and constantly exposed to rethinking what they take for granted learn about the history of the development of intellectual thought. The more crucial lesson, however, is the necessity for aretē using sophrosyne by simply examining what they know. Philosophy as a discipline often faces accusations of never reaching any concrete truth or providing True and Valuable philosophy. The truth is that philosophy's role is not to offer absolute answers; True and Valuable philosophy is the process of searching, enhancing, and re-examining itself. It goes beyond presenting simple facts about politics in a certain country; it delves into deep personal knowledge that individuals might claim to have. While offering people the chance to be taught philosophy in the Middle East in the same way it was taught in that class is probably unrealistic, it teaches us something about the value of philosophy. Perhaps the Middle East is not ready to be saved, if such a thing is even possible, or if philosophy can genuinely fulfill that role. However, philosophy can make a significant contribution in various ways, including teaching sophrosyne, enabling the practical application of reason's insights, and providing logical arguments that are understandable and unbiased, irrespective of one's national or religious affiliations, as an actual way of life.

References

← All papers