What is Socratic intellectualism

In this lesson from a TEACHER, we explain what is Socratic intellectualism or moral intellectualism, a doctrine that identifies knowledge (of justice) with virtue or good to do. For Socrates the ignorance is behind all evil deed and, therefore, such action would always be involuntary, since it is done out of ignorance.

Moral conduct, therefore, requires knowledge of the good. And this is the Socratic intellectualism. Remember that Socrates part of a dualismanthropological, according to which, the human being is made up of body and soul, the first material and the second non-material. The virtue human, resides in your soul, and is only achieved through knowledge of the truth, which will consequently lead to happiness.

The phrase "know yourself”Perfectly sums up the Socratic moral intellectualism, since with this, it means that knowledge is the most important thing, since it arises in the spiritual part of the human being, that is, in his soul. The truth is inside and it is only possible to access through the

reflection and the dialogue. His method, the mayeutics or art of midwives, is the art of giving birth to the truth.

“The parting trade, as I do it, is similar in all other ways to that of midwives, but differs in that I I exercise it on men and not on women, and in that they attend the birth, not the bodies, but the souls”… (Plato, “Theaetetus”)

According to Socratic doctrine, knowledge of good and justice it is the basis of good deeds. If you do well, it is because you know what good is. To explain this, Socrates compares a doctor with the legislator of the polis. When a person is sick, everyone knows who to call for help: the doctor, who is the that he knows about health and about curing diseases, and they do not ask the opinion of the majority to be able to know that he should make. Why do you know about city government? You don't have to ask the public, says the philosopher, but rather the expert, whom he knows. Because morals and politics are matters that only experts know how to handle.

Is Socrates, like his disciple Plato, making a anti-democracy policy? There are many who interpret it that way, dismissing its philosophy as elitist.

On the other hand, this thinker does not make it very clear what knowledge he refers to, because know what a thing is and know how to do that thing, they are two different things. But by all interpretations, for Socrates, knowing how to do something would be the true knowledge, since knowing what something is is more of a skill, but knowing how to do it requires conscience. Knowing what a thing is is not the same as creating it.

Perhaps the one from Athens has sinned a certain naivety with such statements, since, in practice, it is possible observe how people, despite knowing what good is and how to do it, do wrong, with total will and freedom. And is that Socrates, believed that the human intellect ands perfect and therefore could not fail.

Aristotle, on the other hand, affirms that in addition to knowing the good, it is necessary to want to Will to do well.

Many accuse Socrates of naive in his defense of moral intellectualism, since everyone knows that one can perfectly know how to act well and yet not do it. But it is that in addition, nullifies freedom individual by affirming that if the human being acts well it is because he knows the good and not because he wants to do it, that is, voluntarily. And this would be the main criticism that I would make Aristotle, of which his disciple, Plato, was a teacher.

For its part, Nietzsche, his greatest enemy, condemns Socratic moral intellectualism by forgetting the irrational part of the soul and its passions, and identifying morality with knowledge. It is possible to be aware of what good is, but not want to do it. Because when wrong is done, it is done with total conscience Y Will.