The Wise, the Tried, and the Victimized - Essay Example

? The Wise, the Tried, and the Victimized Duty, obligation, loyalty, and gratitude all these words are associated with what we are expected to naturally grant to the society of which we are a part. We have a duty to uphold our society’s laws. We have an obligation to support whatever endeavors best benefit our society’s interests. We are to have, and show, gratitude to our society that provides us with our livelihoods, protection, and security. Duty and obligation is something that we, also, must extend to our personal responsibilities as well. We have strong duties to our families and ourselves. Society is a structure, with rules and organization that make it possible for large numbers of people to function and progress together. The foundation of any societal structure is culture, which contains all the ideals, beliefs, faiths, and traditions of the people within a functioning society. Although society and culture are not the same construct they are inevitably intertwined. Together they become fused and the people living within them are held by the restrictions and requirements that are expected of them. People evolve, cultures evolve; when they do traditions and ideals may change, but, often, society is less open to the changes that its individual citizens may be. When an individual’s ideas of what is best for themselves, families, or society begin to differ from what society holds as the only right and just things to do within that society they may find a conundrum awaiting them. These differences may put place them in some very extreme moral and ethical dilemmas. When one finds themselves in position to express our varying individuality we become at odds with ourselves, our loved ones, or society as a whole. Culture and therefore society “…is a powerful human tool for survival, but it is a fragile phenomenon.” (O'Neil) Sometimes society is fearful of change because it may destabilize the structure that exists. That is the situation that is found in the four historical stories of Socrates, Master Chuang, Augustine, and Job. Each, for one reason or another, found himself in opposition to the understood traditions and accepted truths prevalent in their times. Although they all differ in time and place they are all linked in their common dilemmas. Today we, often, take for granted our liberties to freely think and contemplate and express our philosophical ideals, debate religious traditions, and oppose popular political views. However, throughout history those rights we perceive as innate now were, hardly, considered to be so in the past. Augustine and Master Chuang have a great deal in common. Both men offered variations on an already accepted belief system that was paramount in their societies. Both men, also, relied heavily upon their own self reflection of their inner selves and their perceptions of reality as a basis for this change. Now this may seem quite personal and innocuous, indeed it proved quite differently. In order to understand how each became to be in opposition to their societies it is helpful to understand the societies they were living in. In the year 313 AD, or as modern experts term it 313 CE, Emperor Constantine decreed a law of tolerance for the Christians living within Roman borders.(Gill) This act set Rome on a path that would, ultimately, result in a power shift in the empire to one where Christianity became the controlling power in the land. Augustine had been a practicing member of an early Christian denomination called Manicheanism. However, after ten years within the faith he found himself at a spiritual crossroads and began asking questions and thinking outside the box he had been presented. That said, he eventually became a cloistered monk and began on what was a soul searching endeavor. In order to reconcile the ideals of good and evil and God he embraced a belief in free will. The idea that our individual intentions and actions make us responsible for one’s own sins.(Boeree) Master Chuang, embraced a perception of reality that greatly differed from the accepted ideology that existed. Confucianism was a popular belief system in this part of the ancient world. This philosophy focused heavily upon structure and organization. The ideas that Master Chuang brought were those of Daoism, also called Taoism, that holds a much less rigid interpretation of the world.(Lawall, and Mack 838-858) The Daoist teachings are a very naturalistic philosophy, that encourages the allowing of a thing to be the thing that it is; as nature made it is exactly as it should be. Its most perfect incarnation is exactly how it was made by nature. While Confucianism held the idea that if you reflected upon a thing, the more you could understand a thing, the more power you could gain to control it. “If the Daoist’ goal is to become a piece of unhewn and natural wood, then the goal of the Confucians is to become a carved sculpture. The Daoist put the piece before us just as it was found, and the Confucians polish it, shape it, and decorate it.” ("Daoist Philosophy" ) Confucianism spoke to the need to name, itemize, order, and control all facets of their environment, this lent itself very well as a tool for control in political circles as well. It was this that Master Chuang had a greater issue with than the beliefs of Confucianism itself. This is what made him a threat to the existing “powers that be.” Both of these men managed to introduce new ways of interpreting the world and their faiths, and, though, both faced their struggles they, ultimately found esteemed placements within history. Master Chuang taught his philosophies and was embraced and beloved by those that followed his teachings. Augustine eventually attained Sainthood and his writings of psychological self reflection became part of church teachings and he is renowned as, “the best know Christian philosopher prior to the Middle ages.”(Boeree) Socrates is renowned as one of the greatest philosophical minds in history but that title earned him little joy in his lifetime. It goes without saying that Socrates was a “free thinker” and was definitely a verbose orator, but he was also a criminal in the eyes of Greek society. Socrates was put on trial for sharing his thoughts, contemplations, and for the questions that he posed. He was deemed to be a corruptor of the youth as many of the young Greeks were interested in the things that Socrates had to say. He was the first to really ask, “What is good?” Is good something we identify because we believe that it is good or do we think that things are good only because a God did them?(Pecorino) This was not the kind of questions that Greek society was prepared to accept. The Greeks were reaching the greatest heights of political, and military power, as well as, the time where the greatest of ancient Greeks achievements would stem. They were slowly moving out of the heavily religious interpretation of the world and more toward a philosophical one. Instead when an unexplainable event occurred they would not ask what God was responsible, but what other natural event might cause this thing to happen.(Pecorino) Now Socrates took this thinking further. He, like Augustine would do as well, he turned that philosophical idealism inward. He suggested that men are responsible for their actions. That outside sources are not responsible for it, men are. He inferred that an individual must decide for himself if it something good or bad and not rely on the gods or society to answer that question for them. Encouraging free thought beyond the control of the powers that be no doubt drew negative attention, but also curious listeners that may agree. At one point Socrates is complimented with being the wisest man in the world. He entirely disagreed and sought to prove that statement to be wrong, but he could not. People, often, listen to wise men. When he validated his own wisdom he validated himself as a threat. In his trial they called his ponderings atheism. However, he claimed that he did believe, he just appeared to think people gave them too much credit and blame to the gods for actions that men are actually responsible for. They continued to claim that he was a corruptor of the youth of society. He responded with citing that his intentions were hardly so terrible, therefore his acts could not be evil. Despite Socrates’ explanations and justifications in his own defense his judges found him guilty of these crimes (Lawall, and Mack 780-798) Ultimately and sadly, Socrates was sentenced to death. His sentence had far less to do with what he did and more with what his philosophies could represent in the future. He was simply too dangerous in the minds of the Greeks to be allowed to live. Now Master Chuang, Augustine, and Socrates all together do share similarities in that they all had to face with being a threat and bringing, potential, change to their respective cultures. In each of their cases it was men facing off with other men, albeit powerful men. The case of Job is entirely different and these differences are manifested in ways that make his story stand out among the others. Firstly, these others were at odds with what society believed as a whole and their individual thoughts that were contrary. However, in the story of Job we are confronted with the most powerful entity in the bible, God, and the most infamous being, Satan. With these two characters playing active physical roles in the story we have to approach the story working under the assumption that the belief system being presented is an absolute. It is fact for the sake of interpreting this story. We are not just arguing philosophy but biblical mythology. That said, this makes it quite different than the stories of Master Chuang, Augustine, and Socrates as their deities did not appear to validate or discredit them. Job, for all tense and purposes, personified what a godly man should have been. He was devout and loyal to his God. He was a wealthy and successful man with a fine, healthy family. When God comments to Satan that Job is a perfect and prime example of mankind. Satan isn’t convinced. He explains that the only reason that Job is so devout is because he has a great life. If he did not have the life he had, then he would curse god not praise him. So God allows Satan to destroy Job’s life. His servants are butchered, his livestock stolen, and his family killed. Still Job remains devout. He does not lose his faith or love for his God. This might have satisfied God, until Satan remarks that he is still devout only due to the fact he still has his health. So God allows Satan to ruin Job’s health. He becomes plagued by boils and is sickly. Still Job holds true to his faith. However, his friends that visit see Job’s circumstance differently. They know that God does not dole out wrath of this nature unless it is deserved. They believe Job must have done something, committed some sin, earning him all this horrific misfortune. Still Job says he has not sinned. He believes that God must have misunderstood something he did or made a terrible mistake. Now questioning God is a sin and his friends are quick to call him on it. Still Job holds to his innocence and does not lose his faith. They accuse him of pride, which is a sin. Now as a reader, we know that Job has committed no sin, that his circumstance can be attributed to a wager between God and Satan. Job was an innocent victim humbled further by his deity. Ultimately God restores Job’s livelihood. He grants him twice what he had before and he lived happily into old age. With the exception of the views of other men Job was not at odds with anything. He was not a threat to his society, in fact, he was a hugely compliant supporter. It was the direct divine intervention bringing misfortune that forced him to question himself and his actions. In the end we, in the modern society, have the luxury of thinking as we like. Under normal circumstances we will never, likely, find ourselves on trial for having variant belief system or opposing societal politics. Most of us, hopefully, will not find ourselves a pawn in a philosophical debate between supernatural beings that opt to directly intervene in our lives. We are fortunate to live in a time when we, for the most part, are allowed freedoms of individuality, however new, varying, and obscure ways we find to express it. Works Cited Boeree, C. George. "The Philosophies and Religions of the Roman Empire." The Roman Empire. N.p., 2001. Web. 18 Jun 2012. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/romanempire.html "Daoist Philosophy." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005. Web. 18 Jun 2012. . Gill, N.S.. "Fall of Rome-Reasons for the Fall of Rome include Decay, Christianity, and Vandals." Ancient and Classical History. The New York Times Company, 2012. Web. 18 Jun 2012. . Lawall, Sarah, and Maynard Mack, comp. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. 2nd. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2002. 780-798,838-858. Print. O'Neil, Dennis. "What Is Culture?." Human Culture: An Introduction to the Characteristics of Culture and the Methods used by Anthropologists to Study It. N.p., 26 May 2006. Web. 18 Jun 2012. . Pecorino, Philip A.. "Chapter 2-The Greeks: The origins of Philosophy in the West." An Introduction to Philosophy. Creative Commons Attribution, 2000. Web. 18 Jun. 2012. . Read More