YOUR SAY: Was Socrates as profound or practical teacher or a 'profane buffoon'?

I recently allowed myself to be roused from my apathy for Dr. Bill Cummings' column by the hope that he would answer the charges of relativism leveled against him by David Mann. That he has not done this disappoints, though I can't say it surprises.

I did find, however, tucked away in the final paragraph of his latest nonresponse ("The anti-Christian columnist," Oct. 18), a point of interest. In that paragraph he explained his persistent "questioning" and his "search for the historical Jesus" as an application of the Socratic method, to which he claims to be dedicated. This claim intrigued me because, as I'm sure he is aware, the life, character and teachings of the historical Socrates are, to put it lightly, mired in controversy. In fact, "(s)o thorny is the difficulty of distinguishing the historical Socrates," says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "... that the whole contested issue is generally referred to as the Socratic problem."

Now the fact that Cummings adheres to the Socratic method suggests that he has navigated this problem in a way that preserves the method and views to which he refers in his column. Given his treatment of Jesus, the depth of the Socratic controversy, his skepticism regarding ancient documents, and his dedication to challenging accepted opinion, I am wondering how he did this.

Socrates, for example, wrote nothing. His teachings were recorded by his close friends and a few contemporaries. Which of these, if any, are accurate? Which are not? By what methodology did Cummings determine this? Does he adhere to the traditional view that the true teachings of Socrates are found in the early writings of Plato (i.e. those writings from which his method has been derived)? If so, why? If not, why not?

Cummings routinely dismisses traditional religious viewpoints on the grounds that such views are inherently dogmatic. But his view that "Socrates taught that if we didn't ask questions we weren't thinking" is traditional (and an oversimplification), and his claim that "I was raised up in the Socratic methodology," sounds pretty dogmatic to me, at least by his standard. Why not side with Xenophon's view of Socrates as a mere practical teacher? Or Aristophanes' picture of him as a profane buffoon? Is it only because Cummings wasn't "raised up" this way?

Here David Mann might note that without some objective standard of value you have no grounds for choosing any view of Socrates over any other. He might note that this is pretty much the definition of relativism, and, if he's done his reading, which he seems to have, that Plato's Socrates refutes this exact view in the Theaetetus. For kicks, he might also point out that, minus such a standard, the answer to your favorite rhetorical question, "who am I to judge?" is, literally, "no one."

My own guess, however, is that Cummings will avoid these questions entirely because they contribute little to the real purpose of his column, namely, to get a rise out of people. Weighty philosophical problems tend to make poor fodder for the would-be provocateur. Nontraditional views of Socrates raise few Bible Belt blood pressures. Refutations of relativism ruffle few feathers.

It will be much more to his purpose to simply continue harping on the "historical Jesus," needling the thin-skinned few who for some reason read his column, ignoring or mocking any detractors that arise, and using the word truth as a tool for this purpose, rather than any meaningful standard of judgement. Which, by the way, makes him almost the exact opposite of Socrates.

Philip Lengel is a resident of Macon.

This story was originally published October 24, 2015 at 9:01 PM with the headline "YOUR SAY: Was Socrates as profound or practical teacher or a 'profane buffoon'? ."