OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 218 Oracle of Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs

MAN KNOW THYSELF: A PANACEA FOR ATTITUDINAL CHANGE IN THE SOCIETY

Chidi K. Ogonnaya

Abstract As a moral philosopher, left no one in doubt on his mission. Originally, philosophy was concentrated upon the physical nature outside man until Socrates with his strength of will and strong moral earnestness, steered philosophy into the arena of morality. He comprehended the practical problems of life in one question – how to live rightly. Ever since then, these noble aspirations of Socrates to change the society for the better have not yielded positive results. This paper identifies among other things that lack of self-knowledge among the people is partly responsible for the immoral attitude being experienced in the society today. It has become imperative that the society needs this interior enlightenment and condition which enables man to seek the good always and act reasonably well. With the method of analysis, the paper argues that for one to make a success of one’s own life, of one’s household and of one’s society, there should be a wholesome examination of our individual lives for a meaningful existence. Many a time, the society has suffered greatly as a result of the absence of this self-knowledge among its members. This paper submits that the acquisition of self-knowledge should be seen as a ‘virtue’ which must be acquired and cherished by the society at all times. The paper therefore concludes that man has a solemn duty to seek knowledge in order to escape ignorance and behave rationally. Hence, the need for attitudinal change in the society.

Keywords: Change, Socratic Doctrine, Knowledge, Ignorance, Virtue

Introduction Socrates was widely known throughout the history of Western Philosophy as a great teacher. Not a few philosophers have argued that the development of an authentic self is the central lifelong project for each man. Socrates, the father of moral philosophy, happens to be the first to call man‟s attention to himself. The belief that goodness is a matter of knowledge is attributed to the historical Socrates. He wished to reduce all excellence to some kind of knowledge and was profoundly convinced that no man does wrong on purpose because no man is willingly ignorant. This explains, to some extent the reason why he was far more occupied in teaching men to think for themselves. Though, he did not put his doctrines into writing, he taught orally. However, three of his young contemporaries, Aristophanes, and who preserved his noble doctrines were of the view that: “Socrates insisted on the belief on moral values, on an austere conduct of life, and on the unity of wisdom, knowledge and virtue” (Dagobert, 1959). There is no gain saying that Socrates had a moral and practical purpose. He spent his life time inquiring into human life and its qualities, all that we should now call the spiritual and mental side of life in the wider meaning of these terms. The great Socrates is, therefore, the philosopher who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and throws himself into acquiring it with an insatiable curiousity. Socrates, strictly speaking, conceived philosophy fundamentally as a summon to an authentic life just like Soren Kierkegaard of the contemporary period. Believing that virtue is knowledge, it was incumbent upon him to spread abroad knowledge. He would agree that he could elicit knowledge, or bring it to birth through the practice of disciplined conversation. He felt that he was subject to a divine or supernatural experience. In the Apology, Socrates puts it thus:

It began in my early childhood - a sort of voice which comes to we; and when it comes, it always dissuades me from what I am proposing to do, and never urges me on, It is this that debars me from entering public life (Apology, 30a-31c).

OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 Oracle of Wisdom Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 219

It was in this light that he sees philosophizing as a divine mission and a vocation entrusted to him by God about which there could be no compromise. Little wonder, Cicero, for example, says of Socrates: “He called down philosophy from heaven. Settled it in cities, introduced it into houses and made it necessary for inquires to be made on life and morals, good and evil” (Zeller, 1950).

The History of the Socratic Doctrine: Man know Thyself. Here, this paper shall trace the origin of the doctrine „Man Know Thyself‟. The ancient philosophy in the west as in the East did not begin with the study of man. As such it was concentrated on the world that surrounds man, the cosmos. It was not long the skepticism of the sophists turned the attention of philosophy to man, to his mental and moral nature and to the practical problems of life. The climax of this era came with Socrates who made man exclusively the central problem of philosophic thought, with the main interest in the correct conduct of life. Suffice it to say that the early cosmologists discovered nature while the sophist and Socrates discovered man.

The Greek Culture The name „Greek‟ meant a lot in the history of western Civilization. Their worthy and intellectual contributions in all the facets of human life were second to none. Basically, their way of life is that of critical thinking and reflection upon fundamental issues of life. Popkin (1969: p.6) attested to this thus: “It was characteristics of Greek philosophy to be highly speculative.” This trait is revealed most strikingly in metaphysics, where many Greek philosophers attempted to discover the true nature of the world by the use of reason alone. who opened up this new area of thought is the founder of the Ionic physical philosophy, and therefore the founder of Greek philosophy. Hegel, writing on the importance of Greek culture also has this to say: “The name of Greece strikes to the hearts of men of education in Europe” (Copleston, 1962). In this regard, therefore, Hegel is of the view that no one would attempt to deny that the Greeks left an imperishable legacy of literature and art to our European world. The same is true of philosophic speculation. Stumpf (1975: p.4) explains it thus: “The broad-mindedness and inquisitiveness of her people created a congenial atmosphere for the intellectual activity that was to become philosophy.” We can, therefore, see that it was the insatiable curiosity and wonder of the Greeks that led to the development of man‟s intellectual life. The Greeks won for man, freedom and independence of philosophic thought; and proclaimed the autonomy of reason. Stumpf (1975: p.5) writes again thus: Greek philosophy was an intellectual activity, for it was not a matter only of seeing or believing but of thinking and philosophy meant thinking about basic questions in a mood of genuine and free inquiry.

Philosophy, as an inquiry, should be seen in no other light than as a focus through which we can see our own roles and actions, and determine if they have any real significance. Wisdom then, means a definite practical attitude to life.

The Religious Society No doubt, the Greeks were very religious sect of people. Unlike every other sect, they have their centre of worship at the temple of with the oracle of Apollo as their common governing religious body. Though regional amphictyonics also formed centres of common worship at Delphi, Argos, Delos, Triopium and elsewhere; the Greek worship throughout the archaic and classical periods was therefore essentially communal. The oracle of Apollo at Delphi had neither a recognized orthodoxy to enforce, nor a disciplined and obedient clergy to support it in any state that might prove recalcitrant. Instead, the oracle confined itself to giving advice, „Know Thyself‟ it said. No wonder the temple of Delphi had a very remarkable inscription or manifesto written in bold as, “MAN KNOW THYSELF.” This is to say that the maxim, „Know Thyself‟ first came to limelight from the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. Everyone of the Greek were very conversant with the inscription at the temple of Delphi and it is believed that it helped to explain the significance of religion in the entire lives and outlook of the Greeks. OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 Oracle of Wisdom Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 220

The religion of the Ancient Greeks can, therefore, be clearly seen for what it was. It was creedless, developing without any authoritative writing like the Bible or the Koran, and without any inflexible tradition to hamper or to guide it. The Greek religion was for the most part completely free from other worldliness. It was a religion of everyday life, which sought for temporal blessings such as good crops, deliverance from enemies, health or peace within the community.

Thus far, we have seen, that the doctrine „Man know Thyself‟ originated from God but was associated mainly with Socrates because of his perceived role of a gadfly, which according to him, was divine and his continued insistence on self- knowledge, „know thyself‟ he used to say. To This end, Socrates had to put it into practice through his exemplary life and worthy principles. Because of this noble feat, he was, therefore, regarded as very important historically precisely for saving man from self-destruction with his insistence on frequent reflection and self-questioning. „Man know Thyself‟ was to become the summary or key of what Socrates had in mind to ensure the good life for man. To this, he saw his role as that of a gadfly that stings human beings to action. It can, therefore, be said that Socratic philosophy had done more good than harm to the entire humanity, especially for influencing man‟s attitude to the correct conduct of life. This philosophy, no doubt, had such practical effect on the lives of the Athenian youths that the authority noticed it, accusing him of having corrupted their youths, and had him put to death. This paper sees this as a crime to philosophy, because the way of philosophy and only by following that way can man attain real wellbeing or happiness. Simply put, it was only in the philosophic life that the soul‟s desire can be satisfied and the aim of the true self be fulfilled. No wonder, Socrates insisted that every man‟s supreme concern should be the tendence of his soul and the furthering of his insight into moral and spiritual values and the application of that insight in all his conduct.

Knowledge as a Virtue Socrates equated knowledge with virtue. He held knowledge to be the interior enlightenment and condition which enables one to seek the good always and act reasonably well. Socrates said more than simply that goodness and knowledge are related. He identified these two, saying that he who knows what the good is will do good. By this „knowledge‟ he meant an unshakable conviction based on the deepest insight into and realization of what is really valuable in life, a conviction such as he himself possessed. More importantly, he understood knowledge to be virtue by saying that: “if virtue is not knowledge, can anyone teach it or remind someone of it” (Guthrie, 1975). When Socrates equated virtue with knowledge, he had in mind a particular conception of virtue. For him, virtue meant fulfilling one‟s function. As a rational being, a man‟s function is to behave rationally. No one who knows what he ought to do can think he ought not to do it, and no one acts otherwise than as he thinks he ought to act. At the same time, every human being has the inescapable desire for happiness or the well-being of his soul. This inner well-being, this „making the soul as good as possible‟ can be achieved only by certain appropriate modes of behaviour. For effective result, some degree of moral discipline is required as a necessary prerequisite of all knowledge. In the Meno, Socrates is of the view that: “virtue is something good and therefore advantageous; and that goodness, practical benefit and right use are equated” (Meno, 87d-88d). For him, therefore, to be virtuous is to be good. Virtue, strictly speaking, is therefore the knowledge of good and evil, and that is something which each man must discover for himself, till he sees it as inevitable as one sees a mathematical proposition after following every step of the proof. Knowledge, on the other hand is that particular wisdom which every man must seek and enthrone in human life. And since only knowledge ensures a good and happy life, the Socratic identification of virtue and knowledge is implied. Virtue is always good and beneficial and can never bring one to harm. But there are things commonly regarded as good in life - health, wealth and even some spiritual qualities that are liable to misuse. To these Socrates says that only right use can ensure that they produce benefit, and this depends on knowledge or wisdom. Thus, this alone is invariably beneficial and therefore, this alone is virtue. Practically, Socratic doctrine, virtue is knowledge had meant that no one could realise the best in him and thereby become happy unless he knew clearly what life is worth living for. In one of his answers on how true OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 Oracle of Wisdom Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 221 knowledge can be attained under his „intellectual midwifery‟, Socrates says: “The surest way to attain reliable knowledge is through the practice of disciplined conversation, acting as an intellectual midwife…” (Theaetetus, 1973). Therefore, in Socrates‟ idea of human knowledge, he advocated a frequent reflection and self-questioning.

Ignorance as a Vice Just as knowledge is virtue, so too, vice is ignorance. By this, Socrates meant that vice or evil is the absence of knowledge. This line of reasoning aroused from Socrates‟ conviction that no one ever indulges in vice or commits an evil act knowingly. Wrongdoing, he said, is always involuntary, being the product of ignorance. For him, therefore, he who chooses evil is ignorant and cannot act creditably and reasonably well, for he lacks the necessary equipment. Believing strongly that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, Socrates holds that: … when people make a wrong choice of pleasures and pains — that is of good and evil, the cause of their mistake is lack of knowledge. Wrong action which is done without knowledge is done in ignorance (, 357d-e).

Thus, no one should actually punish a person for committing an evil, since it was committed out of ignorance. Little wonder, Socrates was of the opinion that when a man acts contrary to what is best, he does not judge it to be so, but acts in ignorance. The equating of vice with ignorance is not so contrary to common sense, for the ignorance, Socrates speaks of refers not to the act itself but to its ability to produce happiness. It is ignorance about one‟s soul, about what it takes to „make the soul as good as possible‟. To this end, no one wishes evil, on the ground that „to desire and obtain evil things‟ is a recipe for happiness, so that anyone who ostensibly wishes evil must be presumed to be ignorant that it is evil. Socrates believed that if men really knew what they were doing, they would always choose the good, for that alone can make them happy. If they deliberately choose to be evil, it is because they think it is a short cut to happiness. But they will find that the short cut is a cul-de-sac. He says: “It is their ignorance that makes them put their trust in evil-doing” (Barrett, 1936). All men wish to achieve one and the same end, namely, happiness. The wise man chooses the path of virtue which leads him there while the fool in his ignorance chose the path of vice, believing that it is a better road to the same goal. Wrongdoing, then, is the product of ignorance simply because it is done with the hope that it will do what it cannot do.

It is not that men before Socrates did not observe and reason, define and describe and take thought for virtue, but they had not studied carefully the rational foundations of virtuous actions. Socrates was far from simply preaching the morality of his age and society. He insisted on an intellectual basis for moral principles. Socrates could not separate knowledge from right action. The man, who knows what is right, according to Socrates, will always do what is right. To underscore the importance of knowledge in the moral life of man, he has this to say: “He who does what is right without clear knowledge is in danger at any moment of going wrong and therefore should be compared to a blind man going along the right path” (Apology, 1908).

So, Socrates contrasted knowledge with right opinion. In summary, the Socratic doctrine is expressed in two formulae: „goodness is knowledge‟, and its corollary „no man sins on purpose.

The Paradox of Knowledge and Action Today it is no longer news that knowledge is treasured by the society where the application is to the advantage of the people in particular and to the development of our society in general. Our actions should therefore be guided by the correct application of what we know but due to some ulterior motives which may lead to personal or sectional gain, this application is misdirected and may be a cog in the wheel of our society‟s moral development. It is therefore important to give serious OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 Oracle of Wisdom Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 222 consideration to the consequences of our decisions and actions. Many a time, our society frowns at what one may call some dubious and questionable behaviours of most people held in high esteem. No doubt, the society is moved by this simply because of the position and respect these group of people command. Socrates rightly insisted that complete understanding of what is good will inevitably be reflected in action. In line with this, Socrates is of the view that: “He who knows what the good is will do good” (Zeller,1950). This is to say that to know and act wrongly is a consequence of an inaccurate estimate of modes of behaviour. It is the inaccurate expectation that certain kinds of things or pleasures will produce happiness. It therefore takes a true knowledge of human nature to know what it requires to be happy. It also takes a true knowledge of things and types of behaviour to know whether they can fulfill the human requirements for happiness. Affirming all these, Socrates said: “It requires knowledge to be able to distinguish between what appears to give happiness and what really does” (Stumpf, 1975).

At times, one always think he is acting rightly, but whether his actions are right depends upon whether they harmonize with the true nature of man, and this is a matter of true knowledge. For Socrates therefore, those who know and act wrongly always do it thinking that it is good in some way. “The interior of a man is the seat of a unique activity, the activity of knowing, which leads to the practical activity of doing” (Stumpf, 1975). For proper description of this activity, Socrates created the conception of the soul, the psyche. He held the soul to be the capacity for intelligence and character; it was man‟s conscious personality. The activity of the soul, therefore, is to know and to influence or even direct and govern a person‟s daily conduct. Having been equipped with knowledge, we must always be decisive in our actions and should as a matter of fact give serious consideration to the consequences of these actions. On the other hand, our choices should be reasonable and must be directed towards the good. Carlos (1989: p.2) says: “Choices are what makes a man. They shape his personality, define his character, and make up his life.”

To know what one wants and to do it is the essence of life. Let us therefore conclude with St. Paul‟s assertion, who with good reason wrote: Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap. Lending credence to this, Ogonnaya (2012: p.72) writes: Life is not worth living unless one examines ones life to know who one is, what one believes and what one wants to become. In fact, to know oneself should be a major undertaking in one‟s life. If a person is happy simply to exist, then what is the point of life? Man should give meaning to his life through introspection.

Evaluation From our discussion so far, one can validly say that for any life to be worth living such a life must be wholesomely examined. This is to enable man give meaning to his life and that of others. The Socratic injunction „Man Know Thyself‟ as it affects the art of good living and good moral conduct in our daily life experiences has been the major concern of this paper. In pursuance of this noble goal, the Socratic emphasis on the importance and inescapability of knowledge and virtue is crucial to this paper. To this end, man has a solemn duty to seek knowledge in order to escape ignorance and become wise. Here, goodness and knowledge are closely related. This paper agrees with Socrates because when he equated virtue and knowledge, he had in mind a particular conception of virtue, which meant fulfilling one‟s function. As a rational being, a man‟s function is to behave rationally. Again, by saying that ignorance is vice and is involuntary, Socrates meant that no one ever deliberately chooses to damage, disfigure or destroy his human nature. Stressing the argument further, Socrates as recorded by Stumpf (1975: p.45) says: “Even when one chooses pain, he does so with the expectation that this pain will lead to virtue, to the fulfillment of human nature, a nature that seeks its own well-being.”

OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 Oracle of Wisdom Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 223

This paper is aware that certain human actions are voluntary while others are involuntary; but through deliberations, one can voluntarily choose to do good or evil. Hence this paper considers as inadequate the principle that no one who knows what is good chooses what is evil, because a good man can still do evil knowingly. At this point, the idea of morality as the ability to make the right choice comes to the fore. Hence, the injunction „Man Know Thyself‟.

Without exaggeration, it could be said that Socrates has exercised a great influence upon the course of moral philosophy till date. Extolling the virtues of Socrates, Taylor (1970: p.20), says: “The idea of moral goodness, so central to Socrates‟ thought, and derived by him from religion, was for a long time quite foreign to philosophy.”

To say the least, it was Socrates who directed the attention of philosophers towards the problem of analyzing the concept of moral goodness and good behaviour . Today, the history of western philosophy is replete with various ethical philosophers who, at different times, have grappled with the understanding of the notion, „Knowing Oneself‟ or „Moral Goodness‟. Some of these philosophers have given it phenomenological analysis, some have classified it, while others have made attempt to define it. As have been noted earlier, Socrates is the one who greatly illuminated the concept in question, for he saw the need to discover what the function or role of man simply as man, must be. Baring his mind on this, Taylor (1970: p.8) observes as follows: “To describe a man as rational but without goodness or as noble and good but bereft of reason, would seem to most men today paradoxical”. With this observation by Taylor, we would affirm that the main underlying thought of Socrates about the Great concern of man as being the development of a rational moral personality - the tendence of the soul, is not negotiable. Today, many have not realized their true potential as change agents simply because they never cared for their soul. At this point, Socrates felt it was imperative to care for one‟s soul. Intelligence is based on the condition of one‟s soul because it is the basis for one‟s decisions, values and viewpoints. Socrates should therefore be seen in no other light than as a gadfly sent by God to sting human beings into action. For posterity, Socrates should go down in history as one who first developed and championed the course of philosophical ethics, for with his virtue is knowledge‟, he did for ethics what Parmenides did for ontology with that assertion that „what is, is‟. In fact, he turned philosophy in an entirely new direction. Having gone this far, it is the view of this paper that no one should be confused about what Socrates meant by virtue. By way of calling to mind, virtue is usually understood to mean moral perfection. This is to say, that virtue is a habit perfecting man in view of doing good action or to act well.

Conclusion Philosophy should not just be a mere academic exercise but a way of life based on knowledge for knowledge is a means to a moral life. As philosophers, we should seek the truth and also help other people seek the truth as well to enable man live a good life. Little wonder, Socrates said that „an unexamined life is not worthy to be lived by man‟. With this mindset, he was able to effect a remarkable change in the focus of western philosophy with his relentless analysis of any and every subject that come his way and his commendable attempt in discovering the foundation for the good life. In pursuance of this noble mission, he derived a method for arriving at truth, linking „knowing and doing‟ to each other in such a way as to argue that: “to know the good is to do the good and that virtue is knowledge” (Stumpf, 1975). This showed his passion for discussing the requirement of morality. He achieved his effect by example, manifesting his own goodness both in his actions and in the excellence of his conversation about virtue and human affair in general. Plato confirmed this thus: “Socrates was a man with a deep sense of mission and absolute moral purity” (Stumpf: 1975). The examined life and examined beliefs lead to lives that are responsible and fully awake. Socrates‟ thesis is that making oneself as good as possible is the true goal in life and the key to genuine success. To this end, we must cultivate the habit of desiring only what is right and just.

OWIJOPPA VOL.1, No.1 2017 Oracle of Wisdom Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 224

As a matter of fact, people must watch situations carefully, listen intently, speak only when you must, ask questions, ponder responses and avoid unnecessary arguments. A sound knowledge should always be the watch-word and guiding principle in our daily behaviours and activities. In fact, people should gain knowledge through education, seminars and public enlightenment campaigns. For effective result, knowledge should be acquired from the grass-root. This paper believes that the foundation of every moral excellence must be laid in absolute loyalty to a sound moral tradition enforced by education. For man to become good, he should realize that goodness depends on the sense of right and conscience. As a result of this, there is every need for man to make efficient use of his sense of right and conscience in practical life to ensure the much desired attitudinal change in the society. It is the view of this paper that „knowing oneself‟ should be a major undertaking in our lives. In conclusion, this paper submits that in this present age and time, there must be a spirited effort to perpetuate the figure of Socrates in an appeal to know and realize ourselves. The Socratic injunction „know thyself‟ should be rendered as „choose thyself‟.

REFERENCES Barrett, T.K. (1936), Psychology and Philosophy -The World of Thought, London: Odhams Press Ltd. Bluk, R.S. (1961) Plato’s Meno, England: Cambridge. Carlos, G. Valles (1989). The Art of Choosing, Image Books, New York: Doubleday Inc. Copleston, F. (1962), A History of Philosophy, vol.1, Part 1, New York: Image Books. Dagobert, D.R. (1959), Pictorial History of Philosophy, New York: Philosophical Library Inc. Dickson, G.L. (1932), Plato and His Dialogues, New York: Herton and CO. Inc. Edward Zeller, (1950)Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, 13th edition, New York: Meridian Books Inc. Guthrie, W.K.C. (1975), A History of Greek Philosophy, vol.1, Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Ogonnaya, C.K. (2012), Man know Thyself: An inward life in practical living, IMSU Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1, No. 2, Owerri: Applause B. Multi-sectors Ltd. Omoregbe J (1990), Knowing Philosophy, An introduction to philosophy, Joja educational research and publishing Company. Omoregbe J. (1991), A Simplified History of Western Philosophy, (Ancient and Medieval Philosophy) vol.1, Nigeria: Joja Press Ltd. Pegis A.C. (1945), Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, New York: Random House. Plato, (1908) Apology, revised by Thomas day Seymour with a dictionary, New York: Ginn and company. Plato, (1949), Meno, translated by Benjamin Jowett with an introduction by Fulton H. Anderson, New York: the Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc. Plato, (1973), Theaetetus, translated with notes by John Mcdowell, Oxford: Oxford University press. Popkin, R.H. et al. (1969), Philosophy Made Simple, W.H, Allen, London: A Howard and Wyndham Company. Richard Taylor, (1970), Good and Evil A new direction, New York: The Macmillian Company. Stumpf, S. E. (1975), Philosophy, History and Problems, 2nd edition, McGraw - Hill Book Company.