A Socratic discussion of the virtue of “A passion for rightness” would consist in trying to answer the question: That kind of passion for rightness which is admirable, how can I articulate in a clear and precise way the essence of what makes it admirable. The following are examples of exercises I have found useful for this purpose.

1. Think of Positive Habits of Mind Analogous to Those Emphasized in Pauline Christianity, Defined by Contrast with Some Negative Opposites.

A. Negative opposites of the ideals emphasized in Pauline Christianity, possible human weaknesses it means to remedy.	B. Positive habits of mind analogous to those emphasized in Pauline Christianity, defined by contrast with A.
Silencing internal dissatisfactions when I am leading a life that is “normal” or materially “successful” by the ordinary standards of those around me.  Deadening internal dissatisfactions by using alcohol or drugs to make me feel happy and content.  Escaping from internal dissatisfactions by distracting myself with superficial entertainment and partying, or busy-work.  Being “reasonable” and “practical,” dismissing “irrational” diffuse anxieties (existential angst), due to feelings that “there must be more to life than this.”	Listening to internal dissatisfactions, and addressing them by finding out and increasing one’s commitment to what actually feels more deeply meaningful.
Feeling encouraged and persisting in doing what is right when my efforts are successful in changing things, becoming discouraged and giving up when I am unsuccessful.	Seeing oneself as an agent of rightness in the world, aiming for success in bringing rightness to the world, but persisting whether successful or not.
Silencing feelings of meaninglessness in life by relying on religious beliefs assuring me that abiding by these beliefs and rules is meaningful even if it does not feel meaningful.	Choosing a religion, or interpreting religious beliefs, in such a way that following them actually does fulfill a felt need for meaningfulness in life.
“God is a forgiving God” as an excuse for wrongdoing, knowing that you can rely on God’s forgiveness.	Trying sincerely to try to live up to the demands of a morally demanding God.
“I’m OK as long as I’ve broken no rules.”	Holding oneself to the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of the law.
Striving for excellence in socially recognized things like academics, sports, or business, but accepting mediocrity in morality.	Striving for excellence in moral virtue.
“No one’s perfect,” “It’s only human nature,” “everyone does it” as an excuse for doing things you know are not really right.	Following one’s conscience even if it requires standards of moral commitment above the ordinary.
Compromising one’s conscience in order to fit in and go along with the crowd.	Willing to go against the crowd in order to follow one’s conscience.
In awe of the powers that be, because they are powerful and respected.  Fear of being in opposition to them.  Conformity to society out of fear of the consequences of not conforming.	Being willing to be in opposition, a “whistleblower” “rocking the boat” or challenging the system.
Yielding one’s conscience to social or religious authorities, not taking responsibility for one’s own sense of right and wrong.	Taking responsibility for one’s own sense of right and wrong.
George Orwell’s totalitarian but sedated society, ruled by all-powerful dictators who keep everyone happy by drugs inducing a feeling of contentment in everyone.	Refusing to let one’s desire to feel content blind one to social injustices.
“I’m no worse than anyone else” as a reason to treat everyone else as badly as I have been treated.	Not passing on my suffering to others.
Fear of appearing to be a loser, or being associated with those regarded as losers.  “Winning is not the main thing, it’s the only thing.”	In an unfair society, bad people are found among winners, and very good people are found among “losers.”  Associating with people on the basis of moral uprightness rather than worldly success.
Fighting for justice so long as I am successful and making a name for myself, giving up when it appears I will fail and go down unknown.	Dedicated to being an agent of rightness in the world whether successful or not.
Dimming the voice of conscience out of fear of internal discomfort and external conflict with society.	Listening to the voice of conscience even if it makes me feel often internally guilty and externally at odds with society.
Blaming myself when I feel at odds with society, thinking there must be something wrong with me.	Recognizing that sometimes when I feel at odds with society, it is because society is fundamentally unjust.
Blaming all my problems on society, unwilling to be self-critical.	Being willing to turn moral criticism inward even when it shakes my self-confidence.
Following my conscience no matter what it tells me, with no effort at critical examination of the self-centered biases that might skew my sense of right and wrong to favor my own interests.	Concern to develop a good conscience, purifying it of self-interest so that it can be something that I know I can follow and be assured I am right in doing so.

Ideas in the “B” column above can be useful as rough and partial analogies to the fundamental attitudes associated with Pauline Christianity in the writings of Paul.  They can be used as “bottom rungs” on a Platonic ladder, starting points in more familiar experience for understanding admirable attitudes of the general kind that imperfectly represent the “practical significance” of the teachings of Paul.  The views of Paul might make sense as “extreme” examples of the kind of goodness represented in a more moderate way in these examples.  At their best, they would be extreme in the same sense that Platonic Forms are extreme, because they “transcend” the limitations of concrete human reality.  But Plato’s thought also suggests that a person can “participate in” these extreme ideals in more moderate ways, and so learn from these writings without making these extreme achievements into practical goals for their own lives.

External Criticism, based on viewing Pauline-Christianity from an alien point of view.

Many objections to Pauline Christianity are based on contrasting the Pauline-Christian view of the world with different admirable ideals that the critic thinks should be given priority in life instead.  This automatically places Pauline Christianity in a negative light, “redescribing” its ideals in a negative way because now it just appears as the negative opposite of something admirable.  Every ideal can be made to appear negative by using this kind of external criticism.

Socratic reasoning might use things listed in B as “counterexamples,” “bad interpretations” of Pauline Christianity.  In Socratic reasoning, when you discover interpretations of particular ideas that are not admirable, think of this as stimulus to try to find or formulate better interpretations.

A. Some admirable other ideals given very low priority in Pauline Christianity	B. Negative counterexamples for Pauline Christianity resulting from contrasting it with A
Be happy, do what makes you happy.	Morbid self-torture; internalized tyrannical authority resulting in an overactive and dominating super-ego
Be a normal, well adjusted member of society	Priding oneself on discontent and alienation
Self-acceptance, self-esteem	Low self-image due to not living up to externally imposed standards
Peace of mind	Failure to resolve internal conflicts
Autonomy, ruled by one’s own intuitions or reason	Allowing oneself to be ruled by something external to oneself
Taking comfort in human companionship and intimacy	Too much introspective self-criticism
Realistic acceptance of an imperfect world of grey areas where nothing is clear black-and-white.	Overinflated and unrealistic sense of life as a battle between pure good and pure evil.
Tolerance, accepting all others non-judgmentally	Intolerant, judgmental
Dedication to peace and inclusive harmony	Fanatic waging “holy wars”

 

External Criticism Resulting from Contrasting Pauline Christianity With Some Ideas More Favored by Christians Today

Other objections are based on contrasting Pauline Christianity with the critic’s ideas about what “Christianity” or “religion” is supposed to be like, or the social and individual functions it is supposed to perform.

A. Some common admirable ideals associated with Christianity or religion in general.	B. Negative views of Paul that result from contrasting them with A.
Religion should provide specific clear rules for conduct resolving subjective uncertainties.	Paul’s criticism of law-keeping leaves people with no clear moral guidance. They leave too much room for subjective interpretation and subjective feeling.
Religion should support social order by enforcing rules against behavior threatening social order, motivating people by threatening divine punishments for infractions of these rules.	The writings of Paul are too hard for the general public to understand, and so are relatively useless for purposes of reforming society.
Religion should teach people to love each other and be kind to each other.	Paul places too much emphasis on righteous anger and too little on love.
The purpose of religion is to give people peace of mind and make them happy.	The focus on following a crucified Jesus places too much emphasis on suffering.
It should encourage charitable works, helping out poor and disadvantaged people, practical efforts to make the world a better place.	Paul is too caught up in criticizing internal attitudes, placing too little emphasis on actually doing good things for the world and other people.
God is a loving and forgiving God who recognizes the limitations of imperfect human nature and only requires that people do the best they can to live up to relatively moderate moral demands.	Paul places too much emphasis on an angry and extremely demanding God.
Christianity is based on the teachings and example of Jesus, a loving person whose basic message is “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “love thy enemies.”  The New Testament preaches a religion of love in contrast to the Old Testament that is full of threats and condemnations.	Paul does not talk of Jesus as a teacher or example at all, and seems still too much under the influence of the Old Testament picture of an angry God.

To avoid external criticism of this latter kind, it might be better to think of Pauline Christianity as not a “religion” at all, or at least a religion different from most current forms of church-Christianity.  Paul teaches a kind of “spirituality” that has not yet become an institutionalized religion.  This does not mean that the many Christian church-religions existing today are wrong or bad.  Most of them are the result of centuries of adapting Christian teachings to a wide variety of historical and cultural circumstances, and of making it suitable as a religion for large masses of people.  Socratic/Platonic reasoning could be applied to the ideals of modern church-Christianities as well, developing an understanding of what each set of modern-Christian ideals might be at their best.

It’s just that here we are trying to understand Paul in his own historical context, before the origin of church-Christianity (which began full-fledged development only following the Emperor Constantine’s attempts to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, around 350 a.d.)  This is not a competition.  Considered from the perspective of pluralist Platonism, making sense of Paul does not necessarily mean weakening or abandoning one’s own commitment to some other form of Christianity or any other view about what finally matters.

Things listed in the A columns above are all admirable and good.  Mistakes only arise when they are absolutized, implicitly claimed to be absolute, universal, exclusively valid standards against which everything else should be measured.  This becomes an obstacle to understanding anything else from the inside.  Rationally speaking, supporting this would require proving that there is only one right way or great way of living a human life, and that anything that does not live up to this one right way can only be wrong and mistaken.  The habit of attributing absoluteness to one’s own views is the source of external criticism, comparing and contrasting everything one hears about to one’s own conception of absolute truths.  Whatever agrees with me I accept.  Whatever disagrees with my conception of the truth automatically appears wrong and can be safely dismissed without further effort to understand.  This approach also guarantees that one will never profit from exposure to anything very far outside of one’s present thought-box.