Questioning and Filtering the Three Sieves
You might have come across the concept of the “triple filter” accredited to Socrates. More or less, the story goes:
Sometime between 469 to 399 BC in Ancient Greece, a man attempts to initiate a conversation with Socrates, implicating a piece of gossip he had heard, either: “Do you know what I just heard about…?” or “You’re not going to believe what I heard about…!” The latter rendition even echos contemporary clickbait common around the internet.
Socrates isn’t compelled by this, however, and responds by asking if the story the man wanted to share passes these tests:
Are you absolutely certain the story you are about to tell is True?
Is what you are about to share Good in any way?
Is there anything about this story Useful?
Whatever story the man wanted to tell Socrates failed all three tests, and Socrates walked away firmly disinterested. “If what you have to say isn’t remotely true, good, or useful then what good reason is there to believe in it?”
Ironically, this lesson may not even be completely true, as its Socratic origin remains widely unaccounted for, particularly due to the fact that the inscrutable Socrates himself wrote nothing. The maxim has origins in East Asian practices taught in Hinduism in the Manusmriti and is a Muslim proverb reflected in the Sai Satcharitra. It appears in the Buddhist tradition of the samma vaca, or the five factors of the right speech:
“It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.”
The internet has popularized this well-intentioned advice by attributing it to Socrates, thus bestowing credibility, familiarity, weight, value, and novelty that constitute successful and viral media content. There are thousands of search hits indiscriminately crediting Socrates, yet this aphorism appears mostly inauthentic to the majority of Socrates’s works recorded by his disciples. Peter Adamson, author of the series A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, asserts that “Socrates was never more inspirational than when he was a mouthpiece for the ideas of other thinkers”.
Socrates frequently questioned the Sophistic doctrine of virtue as a quality that cannot be taught, such as the dialogue between Meno and Socrates. In Xenophon’s Socrates, the pursuit of virtue is the highest honor of man, yet he is unable to succinctly define it beyond a “science”. Can’t science and truth be taught in a lesson, not only known?
Perhaps also a modern effect of the Socratic Problem, the identity of Socrates and his true beliefs are principally enigmatic–a correlation between the propagation of misinformation spread on the internet. Enabling positive communication should be transparent and simple enough in the manner of speech, (thanks, Thumper, and the original Aesop’s fables), but the social realm on the internet is inundated with toxicity and false propaganda. The messages we convey to one another, conscious or not, corrupts our judgment and moral empathy by consuming everything we see without a filter. Not the Instagram kind and the equally detrimental veil of anonymity the internet provides to trolls and persecutors. That is the inherent risk we take on as its users, so while the three filters lesson is cute, ultimately I’m not here to preach common decency in a losing battle. Personal ethics are just as perplexing and complex as the abstractions of Truth, Goodness, and Usefulness.
I’ve learned the virtue here is to remain skeptical. Always ask questions. Expound on the three sieves to produce a finer mesh; such as:
✵ How and where is the truth in the context of my experience and knowledge, and also in the context of others? Is there a truth that can be revealed?
An Indian parable about a group of blind men and an elephant who touched a different part argued about its entity, all claiming vastly different things. They were all wrong, since they were unable to conceive all of its parts as a whole.
I think hearing about the “Socrates Triple Filter” for the first time I was underwhelmed from the advice’s lack of provocation. I’ve always shunned gossip likely because I apply the third filter meticulously in that I usually don’t engage in a lot of conversation I don’t find useful. Having learned more about philosophy and a deeper awareness of verisimilitude, I encountered this aphorism again and grew curious about its true origins that inspired me to write this post. The scientific attitude I have cultivated over the course of my career and life is founded and driven by curiosity, skepticism, and humility.
✵ What constitutes as good? What is the extent? What is NOT good, and is the opposite of good bad, evil, inadequate, or detrimental?
Have you found yourself envying someone else’s success or happiness? This is the basis of another filter social media subsidizes when all you see are constant flexes of wealth (experiential and material), standardized beauty, and achievements, giving you the distorted impression that everyone else is living their best life. You probably go ahead and like their content, and maybe even go as far as to give them credit by telling them “good job” or that “they deserve it” while casting yourself in the victim role. This is a good story for them, but “good” will always remain subjective to the individual. On the contrary, if you are able to celebrate another person’s valid, enriching, inspirational success, then everyone can benefit. Good for you. Is good when all parties recieve benefits? Dig even deeper and ask, what is the quality of goodness?
✵ Isn’t Good in the same integrity as Usefulness? Where does this diverge? What makes something useful for myself and why? Does it have the potential to be useful?
Maybe you’ve perused a few of the posts on Solaria Chip and thought “Is this useful? Why do I even care?” Between Carli and I, everything we’ve written has been within our personal interests of so we have some experience and a vague expertise, but as we practice and develop our blog, we should never remain adverse to writing about topics that are unfamiliar or don’t agree with, as this would be an opportunity to learn something new, be open to diverse ideas, and create a chain of curiosity while always challenging what we know. Don’t believe everything we say (or whatever anyone says on the Internet. Always do your own research, which can open the path of asking the right questions.
culture
philosophy
spirituality
]