소크라테스 철학에서 이성과 종교

Abstract

We are living in the midst of a Socratic revival, both academic and broadly cultural. In the scholarly works, in particular, over the last three decades Socrates’ daimonion(i.e. divine sign) has attracted much scholarly attention. His daimonion is an internal, private admonitory sign and voice caused to appear within the horizon of consciousness by a god(s) or a divine daimōn. Socrates is seen to accept the traditional notion that the gods really do provide humankind with signs(e.g., that the gods provide us with truths through oracles and dreams), while insisting that traditional, hazard methods of oracular interpretation must give way to his sort of rational, elentic methods for interpreting and testing such signs. Socrates’ rationality and religiosity were fully consisted with one another in his own eyes. That is, that is truths of reason are theologically sanctioned, and equally, theological sanctions are grounded in reason. Socrates was condemned for many and varied reasons. Some found him guilty on political grounds, others certainly felt threatened for religious reasons. Socrates rejected the traditional Greek conception of the gods as powerful but amoral beings to be sacrificed to in exchange for favors, and in its place a conception of gods as good and human beings as properly their assistant in benefiting human beings by caring for their souls. In his conception of the divine, besides the gulf between gods and men, it never lies or cheats or acts for any purpose other than the best. Socrates’ lived piety consisted in care of the soul which involved rational inquiry that would aid in the interpretation of the god’s communications. Socrates’ attempt to moralize the gods of Greek traditional religion was so threatening to the religious establishment that it caused a fundamentalist backlash. Their ethical transformation would be tantamount to the destruction of the old gods, the creation of new ones – which is precisely what Socrates takes to be the sum and substance of the accusation at his trial. Athenians counted as “atheists” both those who believed in new gods and those who believed in only one god. Most Greeks were free to think as they liked, and some of them did so, to remarkable effect. Over the years, as Athens suffered war, plague, loss of empire, and defeat, its citizenry became increasingly alarmed that the new learning was somehow to blame, and anti-intellectualism grew. Moreover, under the pressures of military overambition and defeat, the Athenians halted scientific and philosophical progress by persecuting those whose ideas they judged to be dangerous. The religious fundamentalist’ reaction had disastrous consequences on the development both science and philosophy. It’s like a destructive clash between the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. If the gadfly is not swatted, legal limits to political and religious authority are vital to intellectual progress of civilization.