Achilles in Homer's Iliad or Socrates in Plato's Apology - Essay Example

of Lecturer 8th of May, Achilles in Homer's Iliad or Socrates in Plato's Apology Although aesthetics is a major part of literature, it is not all that there is to literature. When one reads a literary piece, one also gets a chance to have a glimpse into what happened at a time in history, particularly the time the literary piece was composed. In essence, Homer's Iliad or Plato's Apology are literary works which reveal to the contemporary reader some of things that happened during the classic age.

This is particularly so as this texts have realism strongly embedded in them. By writing about people that existed in their age, the authors of these two works – Homer and Plato respectively – reveal that they know the significance and markers of the age during which they lived. One of the most important keys to making headway in life is in knowing oneself. Achilles in Homer's Iliad and Socrates in Plato's Apology have one feature in common: they knew themselves. Socrates knew who he was, and Achilles also understood who he was.

Their characters show that once one knows oneself, the other aspects of life are a minority. When one understands oneself, other matters of the world would be minor. The manner in which each of the characters attains self-knowledge varies. While Socrates’ method puts himself in the position of one that knows nothing, Achilles is in a position that places him at great advantage as a warrior. While in the case of Socrates, ignorance is important to the attainment of knowledge; in the case of Achilles, betrayal and breaching of protocol are important to the attainment of self-knowledge.

One must however note that the attainment of self-knowledge by each of them appears to be useful for different reasons. While Socrates’ attainment of self knowledge seems to be more to his personal advantage, Achilles’ attainment of knowledge is obviously not for his personal good alone but for the good of all. Knowing oneself seems to mean that there is a point one gets where all that counts is one’s own conviction. This can be seen in the lives of the two characters—Socrates and Achilles.

Probably because of his association with some enemies of the state, Socrates is picked up and falsely accused. He is found guilty and sentenced to death. That is a sacrifice he pays for being different from the lot. Socrates can also be said to know himself because he even jokes with those that found him guilty, saying that he deserves a meal for the service he had rendered to the state (Fagles 23). His earlier rejection of his death sentence can also be linked to knowing himself. What this tells one is that if one really knows oneself, one will be able to withstand every onslaught that comes.

Knowing oneself also amounts to standing up against constituted authority when what they do is illegal. The final decision of Socrates to stoically accept his death sentence may as well be attributed to knowing himself. Socrates may have been of the opinion that even if he is killed for an offence he knows nothing about, even in death, his innocence would still call out. Even though his acceptance of the death sentence has its good sides, it may also be interpreted to be victory for elements of the state that want to silence critics at all cost.

However, on the other hand, one may want to think of Socrates as a tragic hero. Committing himself to the pangs of death, besides indicating that he knows himself, it also indicates that he knows that even in death, he would live on. And that already seems to be the case already because though Socrates did not have lots of works he did himself; the works that have been written about him are innumerable. This truly shows that Socrates knows himself. Similarly, one can easily posit that Achilles knows himself, but maybe not in the same way Socrates knows himself.

This is because from the look of things, one is likely to easily interpret Socrates as a positive character and Achilles as a negative character, in spite of the fact that both of them rebel against constituted authority. The actions of Achilles seem not to have only sprung from knowing himself but also from pride. Achilles knows himself to be someone that has a strong sense of order, so he works towards bringing order to the Achaean camp even though it is not in his place to intervene where he did.

Nonetheless, what he does is the needful. However, all the good sides that he seems to have further emphasizes his immense flaws—pride and petulance. In this regard, one can simply conclude that Achilles’ life does not fall in line with one of the mottoes of the Delphic Oracle - “Know Thyself” – as much as Socrates’ does. The lives of Socrates and Achilles strongly indicate that for one to get to any desired point of self-knowledge, one must be willing to pay sacrifices. Even though Socrates is already in the know about some issues, he acts as though he knows nothing, just to attain self-knowledge.

One may also interpret his death as the ultimate sacrifice he pays for what he stands for. (Perhaps Socrates feigns ignorance of death to also know what death truly is). In the same light, Achilles sacrifices his loyalty to the state and her officials to attain self-knowledge. He assumes the status of a rebel in order to discover the truth. Even though at some points, he is cautioned by the gods, he eventually runs afoul of the ordinances of the gods. Another sacrifice made by Achilles is that, at the end of it all, he surrenders to the gods.

Works Cited Fagles, Robert. Trans. The Iliad. New York: Penguin Books. 1990. Print