Perspectief 2015-30

Perspectief 42 Fred van Iersel Socrates really means what he says or whether he just tests his partner’s ability to analyze a wrong moral argument. In fact, for the dialogue partner, Socratic dialogue brings a deeper moral uncertainty to the surface, as a way of self-reflection, but also in public debate. Luckily, Socrates was not a sophistic ethical relativist. He kept on looking for moral truth. So in spite of his irony, his dialogues never end up in sophistic relativism. Nevertheless, in short term this may seem to be not very practical for general Alcibiades. He becomes uncertain and his public image as a strong leader with a clear vision is at risk, too. But in the long run, I am convinced that this Socratic dialogue will have made Alcibiades an even better general. I am also sure, however, that the latter was not the aim of Socrates: for him, the quest for understanding ethics was the most important. Again: Socrates clarifies Alcibiades’ moral ignorance and leads him to self-clarification – not by accusing him, but by posing questions. In the Dutch context, The Dutch Catholic humanist Desiderius Erasmus used exactly this method, including the irony, in one of his early writings named ‘ The soldier’s confession’ , which poses a similar question to the soldier: ‘why do you kill as a soldier, and why do you think this is legitimate?’ These Socratic questions of course may be quite nasty for the military. Attempts to initiate a dialogue about these themes may seem threatening to the person’s conscience, or even to the morale in the organization and the soldier’s motivation – at least at first glance. But