Apology and Crito
To many across the history of western thought, Socrates represents a lifelong commitment to the search for truth and an uncompromising critical stance toward societal conventions and beliefs. The trial and execution of Socrates, for impiety and corrupting the youth, immortalizes him as the consummate reflective individual who refuses to compromise his search for truth even in the face of his own death. There is no doubt about the central place Plato’s romanticized character of Socrates occupies in the narrative of the reasoned search for Truth that has occupied Western thought since those heady days in Athens at the turn of the 4th century BC.
In an imaginary future a bold high school biology teacher in Ohio will defiantly teach evolutionary theory to her students in violation of the dictates of the state Board of Education. The teacher will be instructed that she must stop corrupting the youth and offending god (if she wants to keep her job). The teacher will escalate the conflict, by defiantly continuing to teach the truth. She will purposely offend the religious beliefs and traditions of her community even as she insures the death of her career. She will have unpardonably offended the sensibilities of the parents of the children she has been charged to instruct. Her noble and unwavering insistence on the truth of science and the virtue of learning—in the face of a misguided and persecuting public—will draw glowing (and irresistible) comparisons to Plato’s account of the trial and death of Socrates.
The powerful story of Socrates’ choosing death instead of intellectual compromise occupies a special place in the public imagination. Socrates serves as an assurance that an individual can triumph and live a virtuous life. Socrates is evidence that it is possible to remain true (to thine own self). The famous dictum that “an unexamined life is not worth living” is indeed a powerful call to intellectual inquiry, but I am not entirely clear that Plato’s Apology should be read simply as a defense of philosophy against the state. The political role that Socrates sees himself fulfilling through philosophy may be at odds with the political consequences of his tactics. That is, the Apology can be read both as a defense of philosophy against the state and as a defense of the state against the philosopher.
The early works of Plato, including the Apology, are frequently characterized as “Socratic” because Socrates is explicitly central to the texts. For the purposes of this essay it is not important to resolve whether Plato’s works represent an accurate picture of Socrates the real person and his ideas, or whether the figure of Socrates is merely a role model or a central character around whom Plato can develop his own ideas. Whether or not the Apology generally represents a faithful picture of the behavior of the historical Socrates at his trial, the text can still be read as both an earnest truth-telling speech and as an ironic parody. Plato intends to immortalize his mentor and construct a myth consistent with his own objectives and ideas in the Apology. The historicity of the Apology notwithstanding, there is still a fundamental question of whether “Socrates” is offering a serious and sincere defense against the charges or whether the text is primarily a parody of a response to absurd charges. This essay focuses on the actions of Socrates and tries to explore whether Socrates is earnest, strategic, or merely joking. Even if Plato is ironically (re)creating the trial of Socrates, the character “Socrates” earnestly advocates obedience to laws and legal institutions and defiantly surrenders his life instead of compromising his commitments. Socrates therefore does nothing to mislead the jurors even to his own advantage or to save the life of a philosopher. Though Plato may be ironic in his presentation, Socrates cannot be ironic about anything substantial precisely because it would betray the cause to which he is earnestly committed. Socrates, of course, is at times earnest, strategic, and sarcastic. Understanding whether the Apology is a defense of philosophy against the state or vice versa comes down to examining the words Socrates speaks in his defense (regardless of the historic accuracy or Plato’s motives).
Socrates apologia is not simply a justification for certain actions, but it is a defense of an entire way of life and a whole way of living. He believes that his way of life, his constant pursuit of wisdom and truth, his forsaking riches and false wisdom, is dedicated to the service of his city. Socrates is an heroic figure living an exemplary life that should be a model of all citizens strivings and aspirations. Socrates is presented as an exemplar of self-denial, obedience to ideals that serve the welfare of the community. He tells the truth without considering the consequences to himself. It is not merely a defense of his life, but it is his life’s purpose. This moment is the crescendo to which Socrates life-work has been building. He is resolved to death and sees in it the possibility to give his most powerful lesson. If he were not old, I do not think he would have taken the tact of provoking death. But even if his courtroom tactics are merely strategic, it does not diminish the argument he is trying to make. In fact, Socrates last public lesson to the citizens of Athens may be more powerful because it is strategic. If he truly believes that his mission is to goad his fellow Athenians toward a more noble aspiration and to persuade them to fear wickedness more than they fear death, then his apologia must conform to that mission.
Socrates defense in the Apology frequently seems arrogant and sarcastic—an ill-advised posture for someone trying to persuade a jury. He seems to willingly invite his conviction and condemnation in his proud refusal to demean himself in order to save his life. Especially in his mockingly absurd proposal of a suitable punishment, Socrates seems to be provoking jurors—who he knows loath him—into a death sentence. He seems to want to spite the jurors in order to teach them a lesson about the wrongfulness of their judgment. However, life seems a quite high price to pay merely to spite his adversaries. If Socrates defense is a literal affirmation of his beliefs, he is an arrogant person who harbors great contempt for the jurors and the proceedings. This however, would contradict a conception of Socrates as an earnest seeker and speaker of truth and defender of the laws of Athens. That this tactic needlessly propels him toward death amplifies his point. So too, his self-deprecating remarks about his own abilities and his unabashed praise of his interlocutors are transparently insincere. He is clearly doing more than simply telling the truth in the trial. His irony does not mean he is being dishonest, but it does imply that he does not hold the arbiters of his fate in such high regard. I think he is both extolling literal truths and employing irony and sardonic wit to mock the small-minded jurors.
Socrates believes that each of the jurors is bound by the proceedings to set aside prejudices and judge his guilt or innocence on the charges before them. Socrates believes that the task of the jurors is a just one, but that not all of the jurors perform their duty correctly. Since his principles require him to honor the legal institution, Socrates task is to try to convince the jurors about the true nature of the activities of which he is accused. If he were to intentionally mislead the jurors he would be guilty of violating his own commitment to the laws of Athens and the philosopher’s rigorous pursuit of truth. If there is irony in his presentation is not intended obfuscate the truth. He is guilty, however, of great arrogance and a narrow commitment to procedural purity at the expense of justice. Since he willingly allows the jury to come to the wrong conclusion, Socrates commitment to the laws and procedures of Athens and the court seems either naïve or misguided. If we grant that Socrates is neither naïve or misguided, then he must be contented with allowing the laws to err in their application. If he understands that the laws do not always function to produce just, true and fair results, then his allegiance to those laws and procedures seems equal to his commitment to philosophy. Even when he knows the laws will kill the philosopher, he insists on not betraying philosophy or the laws. This unflinching respect for the laws that requires Socrates to do all he can to enable the jurors to carry out their duty ultimately brings about his own death. In the end Socrates betrays neither state nor philosophy, even as the state conquers the philosopher. Anything less would be a betrayal of Socrates doctrine of a full commitment to wisdom and truth.
Socrates absolves himself from culpability in the death of Athens greatest citizen by warning jurors not to be angered by truth and to decide the case according to the facts. Socrates is confidently assured of his own rightness, hence any jurors who come to the wrong conclusion have done so out of anger or prejudice (and therefore have committed the same impiety and injustice he is trying to avoid.) Socrates reckless disregard for the outcome of the trial is an arrogant insistence that he always pursue truth even when he knows that his activities will lead to the impiety of others. In this sense, Socrates is ultimately guilty of exactly the crimes for which he is accused. By employing a court-room tactic that ensures some jurors will act prejudicially, Socrates is feigning truthfulness while knowingly forcing others into positions of untruthfulness. Indeed, he arrogantly shows the pious perfection of his position. It is, however, at the expense of his life and a gross miscarriage of justice. His personal perfection is his greatest gift to Athens even though it reveals that the application of the laws of Athens as unjust.
On the other hand, Socrates’ remarks about the duty of the citizen to obey the law verge on an authoritarian conception of the state. The citizen who fails to successfully defend against a legal charge by the state must completely abandon autonomy to the state. Even though he believes the outcome unjust, Socrates forfeits his agency to disobey the judgment of the state. Socrates allows no justified civil disobedience even when the citizen knows the state’s edict is unjust or untrue. When faced with the dilemma of when to stop resisting and dissenting, Socrates (ig)nobly accepts the commission of a great injustice by the state. I do not think, however, that Socrates is able to fully remove himself from the commission of this injustice. He seems culpable in the death of a wrongly-convicted citizen because he places the Laws and their procedures above the actual guilt of embodied defendant. In essence, Socrates defense is that he is only following the orders of the state and therefore he cannot be responsible for the death of an innocent citizen who the State and the Laws have ordered to die. Socrates seems to be arguing that despite the obvious fallibility of the legal system, Athens cannot survive if there is no final decision-maker that can override the opinions of individual citizens—no matter how right the citizen-philosopher seems to be. The state possesses final authoritative power even when it is wrong. Even though the philosopher has a moral obligation to self and community to speak truth without regard to consequences, the philosopher is not above the laws of the state. Hence, Socrates is inclined to obey completely, to defend and protect the laws of Athens as if they were his parents and masters. This does not mean, however, that philosophers and citizens cannot ever dissent; they are compelled to do so up to a certain point. Similar to Gandhi’s idea of revolutionary subordination, a philosopher must rest in the assurance that the absurd behavior of the state will be exposed through the philosopher’s refusal to compromise. In the Crito Socrates best friend is philosophy because philosophy presents the highest obligation on Socrates. He is willing to go to his death even though his friend Athens betrays him in its injustice toward him. Socrates cannot respond by betraying his best friend philosophy even after the betrayal by his friend Athens. This means that the philosopher’s unwavering commitment to philosophy has the consequence of vesting final authority in the state.
My imagined high school biology teacher will make a similar calculation to Socrates. If the teacher is nearing retirement, this could be a glorious way to go out with one final powerful lesson for her pupils. If the biology teacher is younger and steadfastly wants to continue a career in teaching in Ohio, she will likely opt for a more subversive resistance to the proclamations of the state Board of Education. (She could choose to teach evolutionary biology without drawing the attention of concerned parents.) So too Socrates’ calculation that he had to speak the truth in such a rigid and arrogant way during his trial should be seen in its best light as merely one of several options open to him. His behavior is more accurately characterized as vainglorious of precisely the same variety that he loudly condemns. Ergo, he is not a simple and noble defender of truth, but a calculating old man who choose a particular way of expressing his beliefs. It may be laudable that he did not fear death, but that alone is not evidence that he remained true—only that his tactics were successful. His death secured his immortality after all. So too, the consequences of resistance are different for differently situated people.
This, however, does not fully answer whether the Apology should be read as a defense of the philosopher or the state. My position is that it can and should be read as both. Plato was undoubtedly offering warnings against the excesses of the Athenian democracy and believed that resistance was possible in the fully examined life of the philosopher. The careful and eloquent prose of the story purposely creates an image of a wise and true philosopher resisting the state—even unto death. This compelling read must be balanced against the authoritarian power granted the state and the limited space for dissent and civil disobedience. Plato’s Apology, like Socrates, emboldens both the authoritarian state and the power of the philosopher to resist.
In an imaginary future a bold high school biology teacher in Ohio will defiantly teach evolutionary theory to her students in violation of the dictates of the state Board of Education. The teacher will be instructed that she must stop corrupting the youth and offending god (if she wants to keep her job). The teacher will escalate the conflict, by defiantly continuing to teach the truth. She will purposely offend the religious beliefs and traditions of her community even as she insures the death of her career. She will have unpardonably offended the sensibilities of the parents of the children she has been charged to instruct. Her noble and unwavering insistence on the truth of science and the virtue of learning—in the face of a misguided and persecuting public—will draw glowing (and irresistible) comparisons to Plato’s account of the trial and death of Socrates.
The powerful story of Socrates’ choosing death instead of intellectual compromise occupies a special place in the public imagination. Socrates serves as an assurance that an individual can triumph and live a virtuous life. Socrates is evidence that it is possible to remain true (to thine own self). The famous dictum that “an unexamined life is not worth living” is indeed a powerful call to intellectual inquiry, but I am not entirely clear that Plato’s Apology should be read simply as a defense of philosophy against the state. The political role that Socrates sees himself fulfilling through philosophy may be at odds with the political consequences of his tactics. That is, the Apology can be read both as a defense of philosophy against the state and as a defense of the state against the philosopher.
The early works of Plato, including the Apology, are frequently characterized as “Socratic” because Socrates is explicitly central to the texts. For the purposes of this essay it is not important to resolve whether Plato’s works represent an accurate picture of Socrates the real person and his ideas, or whether the figure of Socrates is merely a role model or a central character around whom Plato can develop his own ideas. Whether or not the Apology generally represents a faithful picture of the behavior of the historical Socrates at his trial, the text can still be read as both an earnest truth-telling speech and as an ironic parody. Plato intends to immortalize his mentor and construct a myth consistent with his own objectives and ideas in the Apology. The historicity of the Apology notwithstanding, there is still a fundamental question of whether “Socrates” is offering a serious and sincere defense against the charges or whether the text is primarily a parody of a response to absurd charges. This essay focuses on the actions of Socrates and tries to explore whether Socrates is earnest, strategic, or merely joking. Even if Plato is ironically (re)creating the trial of Socrates, the character “Socrates” earnestly advocates obedience to laws and legal institutions and defiantly surrenders his life instead of compromising his commitments. Socrates therefore does nothing to mislead the jurors even to his own advantage or to save the life of a philosopher. Though Plato may be ironic in his presentation, Socrates cannot be ironic about anything substantial precisely because it would betray the cause to which he is earnestly committed. Socrates, of course, is at times earnest, strategic, and sarcastic. Understanding whether the Apology is a defense of philosophy against the state or vice versa comes down to examining the words Socrates speaks in his defense (regardless of the historic accuracy or Plato’s motives).
Socrates apologia is not simply a justification for certain actions, but it is a defense of an entire way of life and a whole way of living. He believes that his way of life, his constant pursuit of wisdom and truth, his forsaking riches and false wisdom, is dedicated to the service of his city. Socrates is an heroic figure living an exemplary life that should be a model of all citizens strivings and aspirations. Socrates is presented as an exemplar of self-denial, obedience to ideals that serve the welfare of the community. He tells the truth without considering the consequences to himself. It is not merely a defense of his life, but it is his life’s purpose. This moment is the crescendo to which Socrates life-work has been building. He is resolved to death and sees in it the possibility to give his most powerful lesson. If he were not old, I do not think he would have taken the tact of provoking death. But even if his courtroom tactics are merely strategic, it does not diminish the argument he is trying to make. In fact, Socrates last public lesson to the citizens of Athens may be more powerful because it is strategic. If he truly believes that his mission is to goad his fellow Athenians toward a more noble aspiration and to persuade them to fear wickedness more than they fear death, then his apologia must conform to that mission.
Socrates defense in the Apology frequently seems arrogant and sarcastic—an ill-advised posture for someone trying to persuade a jury. He seems to willingly invite his conviction and condemnation in his proud refusal to demean himself in order to save his life. Especially in his mockingly absurd proposal of a suitable punishment, Socrates seems to be provoking jurors—who he knows loath him—into a death sentence. He seems to want to spite the jurors in order to teach them a lesson about the wrongfulness of their judgment. However, life seems a quite high price to pay merely to spite his adversaries. If Socrates defense is a literal affirmation of his beliefs, he is an arrogant person who harbors great contempt for the jurors and the proceedings. This however, would contradict a conception of Socrates as an earnest seeker and speaker of truth and defender of the laws of Athens. That this tactic needlessly propels him toward death amplifies his point. So too, his self-deprecating remarks about his own abilities and his unabashed praise of his interlocutors are transparently insincere. He is clearly doing more than simply telling the truth in the trial. His irony does not mean he is being dishonest, but it does imply that he does not hold the arbiters of his fate in such high regard. I think he is both extolling literal truths and employing irony and sardonic wit to mock the small-minded jurors.
Socrates believes that each of the jurors is bound by the proceedings to set aside prejudices and judge his guilt or innocence on the charges before them. Socrates believes that the task of the jurors is a just one, but that not all of the jurors perform their duty correctly. Since his principles require him to honor the legal institution, Socrates task is to try to convince the jurors about the true nature of the activities of which he is accused. If he were to intentionally mislead the jurors he would be guilty of violating his own commitment to the laws of Athens and the philosopher’s rigorous pursuit of truth. If there is irony in his presentation is not intended obfuscate the truth. He is guilty, however, of great arrogance and a narrow commitment to procedural purity at the expense of justice. Since he willingly allows the jury to come to the wrong conclusion, Socrates commitment to the laws and procedures of Athens and the court seems either naïve or misguided. If we grant that Socrates is neither naïve or misguided, then he must be contented with allowing the laws to err in their application. If he understands that the laws do not always function to produce just, true and fair results, then his allegiance to those laws and procedures seems equal to his commitment to philosophy. Even when he knows the laws will kill the philosopher, he insists on not betraying philosophy or the laws. This unflinching respect for the laws that requires Socrates to do all he can to enable the jurors to carry out their duty ultimately brings about his own death. In the end Socrates betrays neither state nor philosophy, even as the state conquers the philosopher. Anything less would be a betrayal of Socrates doctrine of a full commitment to wisdom and truth.
Socrates absolves himself from culpability in the death of Athens greatest citizen by warning jurors not to be angered by truth and to decide the case according to the facts. Socrates is confidently assured of his own rightness, hence any jurors who come to the wrong conclusion have done so out of anger or prejudice (and therefore have committed the same impiety and injustice he is trying to avoid.) Socrates reckless disregard for the outcome of the trial is an arrogant insistence that he always pursue truth even when he knows that his activities will lead to the impiety of others. In this sense, Socrates is ultimately guilty of exactly the crimes for which he is accused. By employing a court-room tactic that ensures some jurors will act prejudicially, Socrates is feigning truthfulness while knowingly forcing others into positions of untruthfulness. Indeed, he arrogantly shows the pious perfection of his position. It is, however, at the expense of his life and a gross miscarriage of justice. His personal perfection is his greatest gift to Athens even though it reveals that the application of the laws of Athens as unjust.
On the other hand, Socrates’ remarks about the duty of the citizen to obey the law verge on an authoritarian conception of the state. The citizen who fails to successfully defend against a legal charge by the state must completely abandon autonomy to the state. Even though he believes the outcome unjust, Socrates forfeits his agency to disobey the judgment of the state. Socrates allows no justified civil disobedience even when the citizen knows the state’s edict is unjust or untrue. When faced with the dilemma of when to stop resisting and dissenting, Socrates (ig)nobly accepts the commission of a great injustice by the state. I do not think, however, that Socrates is able to fully remove himself from the commission of this injustice. He seems culpable in the death of a wrongly-convicted citizen because he places the Laws and their procedures above the actual guilt of embodied defendant. In essence, Socrates defense is that he is only following the orders of the state and therefore he cannot be responsible for the death of an innocent citizen who the State and the Laws have ordered to die. Socrates seems to be arguing that despite the obvious fallibility of the legal system, Athens cannot survive if there is no final decision-maker that can override the opinions of individual citizens—no matter how right the citizen-philosopher seems to be. The state possesses final authoritative power even when it is wrong. Even though the philosopher has a moral obligation to self and community to speak truth without regard to consequences, the philosopher is not above the laws of the state. Hence, Socrates is inclined to obey completely, to defend and protect the laws of Athens as if they were his parents and masters. This does not mean, however, that philosophers and citizens cannot ever dissent; they are compelled to do so up to a certain point. Similar to Gandhi’s idea of revolutionary subordination, a philosopher must rest in the assurance that the absurd behavior of the state will be exposed through the philosopher’s refusal to compromise. In the Crito Socrates best friend is philosophy because philosophy presents the highest obligation on Socrates. He is willing to go to his death even though his friend Athens betrays him in its injustice toward him. Socrates cannot respond by betraying his best friend philosophy even after the betrayal by his friend Athens. This means that the philosopher’s unwavering commitment to philosophy has the consequence of vesting final authority in the state.
My imagined high school biology teacher will make a similar calculation to Socrates. If the teacher is nearing retirement, this could be a glorious way to go out with one final powerful lesson for her pupils. If the biology teacher is younger and steadfastly wants to continue a career in teaching in Ohio, she will likely opt for a more subversive resistance to the proclamations of the state Board of Education. (She could choose to teach evolutionary biology without drawing the attention of concerned parents.) So too Socrates’ calculation that he had to speak the truth in such a rigid and arrogant way during his trial should be seen in its best light as merely one of several options open to him. His behavior is more accurately characterized as vainglorious of precisely the same variety that he loudly condemns. Ergo, he is not a simple and noble defender of truth, but a calculating old man who choose a particular way of expressing his beliefs. It may be laudable that he did not fear death, but that alone is not evidence that he remained true—only that his tactics were successful. His death secured his immortality after all. So too, the consequences of resistance are different for differently situated people.
This, however, does not fully answer whether the Apology should be read as a defense of the philosopher or the state. My position is that it can and should be read as both. Plato was undoubtedly offering warnings against the excesses of the Athenian democracy and believed that resistance was possible in the fully examined life of the philosopher. The careful and eloquent prose of the story purposely creates an image of a wise and true philosopher resisting the state—even unto death. This compelling read must be balanced against the authoritarian power granted the state and the limited space for dissent and civil disobedience. Plato’s Apology, like Socrates, emboldens both the authoritarian state and the power of the philosopher to resist.
Labels: creationism, education, evolution, philosophy, plato, political theory, socrates
posted by Richard Stanislaw at
3:15 PM
29 Comments:
the Scopes Trial is an example of this thought of an imaginary future. the intention and passion in the trial was not as pure, more political than anything, but the trial still spurred great debate. it showed that ideas like the Butler Act, which was the law in question that outlawed the teaching of evolution in public schools, can only deter human thought and ideas for so long. the law was repealed in '67 for imposing upon the 1st amendment.
one thing these ideas and events all show is that the pursuit of knowledge will never be stopped. it may be retarded or temporarily outlawed, but never stopped. change is inevitable, and what inspires and creates change is knowledge itself. to hide from change is to hide from knowledge. no one is infallible. the idea to believe some things can't be bettered is ignorance.
the conservative term "flip-flopper" is a tactic to deter change. a justified change in opinion is not unpatriotic. it is intelligent. to use knowledge to create an opinion that differs from a previous one does not make you a weaker a person. to be able to admit fallacy is responsibility. to arrogantly stand by a belief at the cost of others is the most extreme lack of knowledge. the public can't let political tactics and rhetoric keep them from change and the pursuit of a better society. there's a "flip-flopper" in all of us.
I agree that there is a little "flip-flopper" in all of us but, sometimes it is better not to change. Sometimes standing by what is already in place is better. Having the knowledge to know when to change and when not to change is the key. Not many people acutally would posses this knowledge, the problem is that people who do not posses this knowledge, of fallibility, think that they do. When in all reality they are making decisions that are hurting more people than they are helping. i.e. the president thought that reconfiguring the social security funds would benefit people who are currently on social security and those who will be on it in the future. When in reality it has not made things any better thus far, it has just complicated things. Had they possesed the knowledge of the fallibility of changing the social security system. Possibly it would have been left alone, but who knows maybe they have knowledge that I don't and the restructuring of the social security system will be a good thing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think "Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Meno, and The Republic" are not taking a stand for either point but rather questioning justice. In all of Plato's works he never really defines justice and what is just, but he creates an argument to question the ideas of justice. The question is was Socrates acting justly. If justice is related to the "greater good" and the goodness of man than the good man would say he acted justly. But the not good man would say he acted unjustly. If Justice is to profit the majority than one can say the courts failed to act justly killing a man that educated the people. Socrates died for free thought and did not die to say one side was more just or the other (the state v. philosophy). He left justice as an art. An art is infallible and so the art of justice can due no wrong. My position is he is defending either, he is simply questioning both. He is neither resisting the state because the state represents the majority. The majority benefits from justice and Socrates philosophy intends to find justice and preserve it. And this is what I think, and it’s totally just coming out of my ass.
They say older is wiser, but in the Apology sometimes older people need to keep quiet in some cases, espically dealing with your life. It is okay to tell the truth, but when you have people like those of the Scopes Trial, they need more evidence in their face. Flip-flopping is understandable because people want to make sure they made the right decision and not just one sided. When you believe in something so strongly, you have to think about those who are around you and if it is going to effect them in the process. Having respect for those who does not understand your belief, keeps the arrogance level down. Expression how you feel to others and teaching them new things is good, but letting them know that what you are teaching them is your outlook and they have the right to believe what they want.
Admittedly I am not one for philosophical thought, and reading into what may not be there. Nevertheless what I gathered from the Apology and Crito were two almost contradicting arguments. In the Apology Plato seems to portray Socrates as seeing himself above the state. That his pursuit of truth is more important then any laws of the state. And while it may be noble that he is truthful when speaking to the jury, he doesn’t seem to hold them, or the laws of the city to the same regard that he will in Crito. Socrates entire argument in the Crito is the unquestionable power of the state. That we should have no greater loyalty then that which we have to the state. So during the trial our highest loyalty is truth, and after it is the state. Or is it truth, but not at the cost of the state?
Socrates is a complex individual. It is an undeniable fact that Socrates ability to rise above the pressure of the state to change his views. However, Socrates does contradict himself by teaching strict compliance to the laws of the state yet standing for defiance against the state in the pursuit of truth.
I believe that you can justify this kind of action. Socrates is within reason for breaking the law. His quest for truth is a noble one but the state vigrously opposes his teachings. Since the state usually has the best intention of their people in mind most laws will be acceptable. However, the state is a flawed institution. The State will pursue actions that are deemed unacceptable by some individuals. Socrates is one of these individuals that stands in the state way.
Standing definatly because of his belief that the state is showing one of its flaws. I believe that Socrates defend the state from philosophy and vice versa is justifiable. Only to a certain degree can both be defended until the moral boundary is crossed by either one. Only then can the other take action against the other.
In a corner of the world, Greece, where it is said that democracy was established, it is intriguing that we find Socrates on trial for the accusation of corruption. A free society should embrace the views and convictions of others who may be critical of other individuals in society.
Socrates is accused of “corrupting the youth” with his old wisdom and beliefs. However, in a democratic society, who exactly decides what corruption is and why is corruption such a threat to Athens and Greece as a whole nation? Obviously, in “The Apology”, the state decided that ‘corrupting’ the youth is a crime against the laws of the state and a threat against order. Moreover, Socrates learned the hard way that a complete democracy does not live in Athens due to the nature of his trial.
Government action against an individual’s beliefs and views does not mean society fosters a completely free democracy. The high school biology teacher who presents her views against the school district’s policy will be accused of corrupting her students. She will not be facing death for her actions, however, her job will be lost if she defies the government’s orders of maintaining community traditions.
The parallel that can be made is simply that the government will allow a certain extent of freedom until order, reason and corruption lines are crossed. Once citizens corrupt others, the government believes that action is required to control the corruptor(s) in the event he/she will cause some form of disorder and chaos.
In the Apology, Socrates constantly pursues the truth despite angering the state. The state essentially silenced him and Socrates is now willing to die even though the state is employing this great injustice against him.
The intriguing connection between Socrates and the high school biology teacher remains that no one was physically harmed or persuaded to take violent action against innocent civilians. Whatever happened to democracy where we are all free to voice our non-violent convictions?
Lastly, since Socrates possesses strong principles concerning honouring the state and the law, he must be admired for his convictions and faith in the system. However, he should have done more for his own defence in a court of law by proving his innocence. More specifically, Socrates should have brought witnesses and his former students to testify on his behalf, including Plato. Secondly, since Socrates did not collect money from his students, a stronger argument could have been made that he is not influenced by material goods or monetary assets.
Socrates simply believes in teaching philosophy and he is not threatening the powerful state by ‘corrupting’ the youth. The state is the true liability in society by accusing Socrates of embracing completely different convictions.
I would like to compare this statement about Socrates to what we've seen with Hobbes.
"Socrates seems to be arguing that despite the obvious fallibility of the legal system, Athens cannot survive if there is no final decision-maker that can override the opinions of individual citizens—no matter how right the citizen-philosopher seems to be. The state possesses final authoritative power even when it is wrong."
Just like Hobbes, Socrates seems to fear anarchy and chaos and cherish an orderly system. He loves the state because it's allowed him to live comfortably, outside the state of nature. If Socrates disobeyed the laws, he’d be falling back into the state of nature.
The main difference between Hobbes and Socrates, I would think, is that Socrates loves Democracy because it is the system of his beloved Athens. He favors rule by the people, not of a dictator. In contrast, Hobbes does not prefer one system over another as long as someone or some institution has the final decision-making power.
Sorry I dont care enough to read this whole blog
What is a man - that is not a man, who threw a rock - that is not a rock, that hit a limb - that is not a limb,that disturb a bird - that is not a bird?
~Plato
This riddle can be found in the Republic. First person to answer this riddle on the blog I will give $10 dollars too.
The man in not a man but an eunuch (which is a man that got his balls hacked off.) who saw a bat (not a bird) that was on a reed (not a limb.) the dude with his balls cut off threw a pumice stone ( to the Greeks they did not think it was a real stone) but missed it. But really.. what does that have to do with anything.
So now that we're off topic, I might as well write about something that's been bugging me. I'm having a hard time finding the answers in the main stream media. In class today, we talked about the war powers act, and my question is about Posse Comitatus.
Posse Comitatus is the "rule" that the President cannot deploy the federal military as a police force against civilians. Only Congress can. By word of mouth, I learned that this was hotly debated during the New Orleans crisis in 2005. Mayor Nagin begged for federal troops to keep the peace, and Gov. Blanco insisted that the National Guard should handle it. Apparently, Bush was on Nagin's side to expand federal power. What I’ve been hearing is that Posse Comitatus expired on the first of the year. Now Bush could issue an executive order to send troops into any American state with a general uprising without local consent. What upsets the critics I've talked to is that decision-making power is in Washington and not localized. Furthermore, the troops don't have local roots like the National Guard does and might not exercise as much care for their neighbors. Has anyone else heard anything about this? I’m really surprised it’s not a bigger controversy about states’ rights.
To bring it back to class, I’m sure that Hobbes wouldn’t mind the passing of Posse Comitatus, as long as the federal government does not become tyrannical with these new “war powers.” Hobbes would probably like the fact that the power to call out the troops is more centralized.
While reading the essay I can’t help but try to relate this to the current form of government. With the idea of civil disobedience and demand for respect of the laws it’s easy to relate his story to our style of government. His death was an attempt to shed light on knowledge and truth and to show that people need to respect rules but at the same time should question them inevitably. With that purpose he went to his death willingly hoping the society would see this. Bringing us back to the current century can we apply this philosophy to our style of government? I think we can, but in a different context. I don’t think anyone is going to kill themselves over a new way of thinking or in the process of proving civilians have power. Today people group together and try to sway the elected officials to push their ideas through congress. Everything is a process, with that said have we processed everything so much that the people who want to change government for the better of the society our inhibited or even put down. I think have processed it so much that it’s harder to bring about civil discourse and through lobbyist and corporate corruption we have lost the solidarity we once felt our government and people were.
Monkeynoodle if you want your money since your not in my class, Email me at cchrist3@kent.edu
When it is all said and done, it really just depends on how much you stand for the truth. I myself would follow the school's reason on the teaching matter, but because I don't have a very strong opinion on the matter. If it was something I felt more passionate about, I would probally do what this teacher has done, and done the opposite of what I am supposed to do. For example, I am passionate about the military. If there was a draft tomorrow, I wouldn't fight it, I would readily sign up. But only b/c I am very passionate towards the military. Someone wasn't passionate towards the military, or felt verry opposite towards how I feel, I am sure they would defy what is being asked of them.
The struggle to find the correct path continues today. Stability vs. Progress. This question will never be answered. The logic of the debate is something to be admired though.
In this day and age it seems that many people have become filp-floppers. These people do not carry the strong opinions that Socrates or the biology teacher do. In their cases I believe it is important to stand up for what you believe in if you think you can afford the consequences. As you pointed out, Socrates was an old man and a strong believer in the ideals of truth and philosophy. He knew that even if he lost his life it would be worth it in the end. Had he been a young man perhaps the circumstances would have been different? All-in-all, I think he should be admired for his strong opinions and his ability to stand up for them.
~Danielle Hurley
The Apology is considered one of Plato’s early dialogues written close to the time of the death of Socrates. The early dialogues are generally held to be more of a truthful account of happenings then the middle and late dialogues, in which Socrates is used as mouthpiece for Platonic ideas. The only two times that Plato refers to himself in this works are to mention he was present at Socrates’ trial but not present at Socrates’ execution. Although The Apology maybe considered a more historic account rather than pure philosophy I think that Plato’s account was most likely greatly influenced by the feelings he possessed.
First we must remember that Plato was a student and great admirer of Socrates. So anyway you interpret the Apology you must realized it was written by someone who was in agreement with Socratic ideas and held philosophy and the Socratic method in the highest regard. Second, Plato was an elitist. While he was a republican he was NOT a democratic republican and believed that the common man with no knowledge of philosophy could not be trusted to run a government. Also, it should be noted that the trial and subsequent execution of Socrates made Plato very skeptical of the state and a disbeliever of democracy. All of these things have subtle impacts on the way the Apology is written.
I believe that the voice of Socrates is meant to show the absurdity of such a system that would put him to death. By abiding to the letter of the law even though it will convict him, Socrates is drawing a parallel to life of the everyday Athenian. The average Athenian follows the rules and customs of his land unquestionably, even though a life without philosophical understanding is meaningless. Socrates is illustrating one of the ultimate philosophical truths: that accepting anything (life, the law) without examination is absurd, irresponsible, and ultimately, leads to disastrous consequences. And being willing to give this example with his life in the balance only shows the level of commitment he has. In the end, Socrates chooses to face death because if he chooses to escape it would only prove correct the horrible allegations set forth against him and invalidate his arguments and credibility.
As for the science teacher, I think that comparisons to Socrates are not rightly justified as one might think. If she is teaching evolution as face, and feels that she must teach it because it is the one and only truth than she is not like Socrates at all, because Socrates admits that the only thing that is certain is that he knows nothing for certain. Socrates never really taught in the respect of putting out a set of beliefs and teaching them or forcing them on to people. The Socratic Method is to take a set of beliefs and slowly deconstruction them to see if they have a rational basis. Math (and science) has the most rational basis and Socrates would probably agree evolution is the strongest theory of life, but he would never agree to its absolute certainty. If on the other hand, the teacher was advancing evolution merely as an alternate competing theory subject to the same scrutiny that is put on creationism, to make students examine the basis for their beliefs, this would be more comparable. The most similar condition, though, would be the persecution by the community. I guess this situation might only prove that people are no more open minded than they were over 2000 years ago.
People have varying degrees of how strongly they feel about different things. If it is something that one feels very strongly about, I think they should stand up for it. On the other hand, if it is something that is not very important to you, even if you have an opinion about it, I dont think there is anything wrong with "flip-flopping"
last post by Tom Banyas
I believe that you should be able to stand firmly behind something qwhich you believe in. However, I also agree that the actions you take upon a certain matter do have something to do with where you are in life and what the certain risk and penalties are which are faced.
In class when we were posed the question of whether Plato was advocating philosophy against the State or the State against philosophy I found myself frustrated by the question, and I think it was in part due to the reading advocated in this blog post. Of course, Plato was playing with both of those scenarios, and the ability for the Apology to be read pretty believably in both ways probably has led to its immortality in the canon of Western thought.
One thought that I had in this conversation is whether the argument of Socrates being culpable for his own death is based upon the assumption that Socrates was all-powerful to determine the opinions of his jurors. It seems to me that Socrates, no matter how obnoxious or misleading his tactics, can not be held responsible for the decisions of the jurors -that they are ultimately responsible for their own decisions and lack of insight to see past an old man's sattirical or misleading argument.
Perhaps the argument would be that, sure in the eyes of the law the jurors are responsible for thier own actions and so these actions weren't a violation of Socrates' civil duties, but that as a philosopher and true seeker of truth he betrayed that earnest and ideal endeaver by choosing to mislead the jurors. That makes some sense, but perhaps the only way to "truly and earnestly" seek truth is to be sattirical and ironic. Perhaps such obfuscations are as much a pursuit of real truth as a straightforward what-you-see-is-what-you-get approach to dialogue.
~Anna Dowell
truth has never been a priority of government, only compliance and submission are emphasized. unfortunately, those who use rationaly and reason and preach the truth are always silenced. -justin finlen
Truth is relative. As much as evelution may be "true" is it really neccissarry to teach it. It seems only useful for biologists, scientists and the like, much like the study of the bible is usefult to a theologian. Whether or not I believe or have been taught evolution has no impact on my life it is a "truth" I have been told that I have no use for in life. Why then should it be nessicary to learn? Is it so important to uphold truth when truth bends constantly in the ever changing winds.
-Craig Myers
Can the flip flopping of socrates (standing for the truth which he considers is more important than the State, and then resting all final authority and power to the State) also be a derivation of the Individuality v Collectivism debate? that perhaps in the end, the individual has to bow down to the state-for the general,greater good? (idea occured after reading Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead')
- Krittika Chatterjee
Definitely an interesting take and a quality analysis of the death of Socrates. Just the idea that the fundamental and inherent quandry between intellectual inquiry and state authority is one that has ceased to change over the thousands of years that have passed since Socrates demise is incredible. Which way is our species evolving; Toward a day when change is embraced and new ideas encouraged? or is technological progress guiding us in the direction of Big Brother and/or HAL 9000?
Ask me I say the latter.
People should speak up for what they believe in. As far as flip-flopping goes, I don't think its that big of a deal. I change my mind about things all the time and I'm politicians do, too. After all, they're only human.
Craig,
Saying knowledge of evolution is only useful for biologists is like saying knowing how to read is only useful for English majors. It is the sum total of all the information we accumulate as human beings that shapes our understanding of the world around us. We can make better and more informed decisions with more and varied information. Our brains are so complex, who knows what choices and decisions we make that knowledge of evolution dictates. That is why its such a hot debate. What we "know" is an important part of who we become, and everyone wants other people to become just like themselves.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home