The Phil in Pedophile

Today we were bestowed with another generous helping of Dr. Phil Now, where the singular psychologist gave us his 9 ½ cents worth on an important issue: pedophilia. Examining the case of Chester Stiles—a recently apprehended fugitive accused of raping (and video recording) a 3 year old girl—we heard from a variety of guests including the victim’s mother, her lawyer, a relevant district attorney, and the son of the woman who may have unintentionally facilitated the contact. What is so outrageous about this outrageous current event? The rape? Most certainly not. Rape is obviously a horrendous act, but unfortunately it is far too prevalent an occurrence to elicit such shock and condemnation by itself. It would be safe to assume that, instead, the answer lies in the 3 year old victim’s youth. It matters more that the victim was a child than that there was a lack of consent. This socially promulgated act of fetishization in the form of reproductive futurism has been addressed in previous essays, and it will likely be discussed in further detail again. In this situation, however, it seems completely inadequate to give up here. There was a strange subtext to today’s episode that seemed to suggest that—on an atavistic level of psychological relics and symptoms—we were not actually discussing the righteousness of pedophilia. Philosophically, we have only one appropriate source to turn to, Socrates, the “father” of moral and political philosophy. Socrates was also accused, tried, and eventually executed for “corrupt[ing] the youth” and “not believ[ing] in the gods of the state” (Plato’s Apologia, trans. Benjamin Jowett). Pederasty was a very real (and generally accepted) part of Socrates’s Greece, so it is an equally real (though often bowdlerized) possibility that the great philosopher was actually being accused of a crime similar to the one outlined here by McGraw^*. It is curious then that Socrates’s defense does not address such a possibility, nor does it respond to Plato’s (more Platonic) version of an ethical pederastic relationship or even the abstract idea of corruption in terms of Athenian youth. Instead, Socrates uses the important platform to defend wisdom and philosophy and, by association, one could easily interpret this as Dr. Phil’s true target. On the first take, it seems absurd to conflate pedophilia with philosophy and the death of one of the most celebrated philosophers. Yet even on the show pedophiles, and Mr. Stiles, were not characterized as the usual lot of ruffians and hoodlums. Instead, the various guests and Dr. Phil described the classic pedophile as “calculated and cunning,” “charming individuals,” “and intellectualizers.” It seems like a great many of our finest thinkers then, our philosophers par excellence, all fit the profile of the pedophile. Dr. Phil, in his aversion to pedophilia, echoes exactly the Athenian prosecutors who warn the public: “guard and [do] not allow yourselves to be deceived by the force of [Socrates’s] eloquence” (Apologia). Socrates’s defense, his articulation of his own wisdom is simple though considerably counterintuitive. Unlike most men (and I see no need to exclude Dr. Phil) who claim to be wise without really knowing themselves or the world, as Socrates says: “I know but little of the world [and] I do not suppose that I know” (Ibid). A constant, deep, and serious inquiry is therefore required, a philosophical delving into the nature of existence, ethics, society, the self, et cetera. Dr. Phil, on the other hand, inheriting the role of the prosecutor, is content to rest on “oration duly ornamented with words and phrases” in lieu of seeking out serious questions of truth. In his possibly well-intentioned efforts to eliminate pedophilia, Dr. Phil has also, through his sophistry-laden methodology and motivations, also placed himself in the position of prosecuting philosophers (regardless of whether their “corrupt[ion] of the youth” is ultimately for good or evil, physical or psychic) (Ibid). Socrates’s prophecy that the Athenian public (who voted to convict and punish him to death) and prosecutors will be reviled through history did seem to come true. Dr. Phil reveals another way the prosecutor injures himself more than the accused in the event that truth is not actually on trial: if no one is beyond suspicion and those most interested in getting to know and manipulate children are pedophiles, we might easily conclude that—in a philosophic sense—there is something of a pedophile in Dr. Phil and a part of Dr. Phil in every pedophile.


^*It seems necessary, before the argument continues any further, to point out a few facts that are quite pertinent, though perhaps not essential: 1.) Socrates’ trial is not, of course, retold by Socrates himself. In fact, Socrates has left no works extant (leading many to conclude that he didn’t even exist) and this particular reading comes from Plato’s Apologia. 2.) While the word "apologia" looks and sounds like the etymologically similar “apology” it means something somewhat different: a defense or explanation of one’s beliefs.