Socrates and Winston Smith - Essay Example

Ramakrishna Surampudi 03 May Socrates – Winston Smith Though Socrates and Winston Smith met with a tragic end, it does not have to make one cynical. Premise: They were common men, killed because they chose to think differently. The tragedies are of different kinds, yet there is something in common. Socrates died of hemlock. Winston died a spiritual death when he, at last, ‘loved Big Brother’ (Orwell 376). Winston’s ultimate loyalty to Oceania was thrust upon him by torturing him. Socrates refuses to escape because he thinks that the right thing for a citizen to do is to abide by the law of the State (Jowett 9). They both were killed by the State, on the same charge of disloyalty in the sense that they subscribed to ideas that conflicted with ‘accepted’ beliefs. Neither Socrates nor Winston was a hero of the superman kind. They were more like ‘everyman’ but with a concern for the people around them. Premise: They both believed sent a message. They were the protagonists in the accounts one reads about them. The final tragedy that befell them does not belittle what they can be believed to have accomplished. The State could overpower them; nevertheless it failed in preventing the message that their death would communicate to the world from reaching those for whom it was intended. In the case of Socrates, the State seemed to be willing to acknowledge that ‘he was a sufferer and not doer of evil; a victim, not of laws, but of the men’ (Jowett 10) but in the case of Winston, O’ Brien clearly tells him that ‘in this place there are no martyrdoms’ (Orwell 319). As a reader goes through 1984, for the time he becomes a contemporary of Winston. Given that Winston is a fictitious character, it is not unreasonable to assume that the measure of his success is the final impact his life has on the reader’s thought process. Premise: They both believed that the masses needed to be awakened. Winston thinks that ‘if there is hope it lies in the proles’ (Orwell 69), not only because they were ‘less watched’ but also because they formed the majority of the country’s population. Like Socrates, Orwell uses allegorical imagery in his description of ‘proles’. It is the class of people who, if awakened, could change the existing conditions, but would never do that. It is not unreasonable to infer that a significant social change for the better is not possible unless the majority is enlightened towards rational thinking. The Party understands it. So, everything that bears the slightest connection with thinking or rationality is thrown into the ‘memory hole’ so that ‘even the ashes do not remain’ (Orwell 312). Socrates intended the same rationality when he favored long, exhaustive hands-off discussions with the Aristocratic youth. He didn’t try to show them ‘the truth’; he instead encouraged them to make an effort to discover the truth from their personal experiences. It is a different thing that neither of the two in this discussion could get the approval of the majority who were less-than-intellectually industrious and driven more by what was necessary rather than what was right. Premise: The state always believed that ‘ignorance is strength’. The State’s spontaneous reaction to thinking would always be this: ‘instead of opening your eyes, you are in the habit of asking and answering questions’ (Jowett 8). The easiest way to ensure and exercise absolute control over the subjects was by keeping them ignorant, on a low intellectual plane. ‘Ignorance is strength’ (Orwell 6) is a slogan that is not far from true. The ignorance of the gullible public is the rulers’ strength. Premise: Awakening is not an easy task. These governments knew well how they were to go about it. Psychologists of our age explain why awakening the public is not easy: ‘In certain people the level of aspiration may be permanently deadened or lowered. That is to say, the less pre-potent goals may simply be lost, and may disappear for ever, so that the person who has experienced life at a very low level, that is, chronic unemployment, may continue to be satisfied for the rest of his life if only he can get enough food’ (Maslow). The majority of Athenians and the Proles were not likely to revolt because the governments were cautious enough to let them be accustomed to that low level, [‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake’ (Orwell 333)] Their effort ‘to abolish orgasm’ was not unscientific. It IS possible to make people incapable of love if they are not allowed to access to it in their early years. That way, a whole generation of the O’ Brien kind could be ‘manufactured’. This is explained in: ‘The so-called psychopathic personality is another example of permanent loss of the love needs. These are people, who, according to the best data available, have been starved for love in the earliest months of their lives and have simply lost forever the desire and the ability to give and to receive affection (as animals lose sucking or pecking reflexes that are not exercised soon enough after birth’ (Maslow). So were the methods of the Athenian State. Socrates, in spite of his refusal to escape and the stand that an individual citizen cannot be justified in refusing to obey the laws of the State even when he is a victim of unjust treatment, makes it explicit that the Athenian government was evil when he asks Crito whether he agreed that ‘warding off evil by evil’ (Jowett 7) was right. Premise: Doublethink is an enemy of awakening. Socrates and Winston lived in a society where doublethink was an accepted practice. Both Socrates and Winston are disgusted with doublethink. ‘I do not remember it’, said O’ Brien’ (Orwell 312). It was doublethink, something Winston could not approve of. But he had no way of persuading O’ Brien. Socrates’ conversation with Crito is to bring the latter out of that doublethink. Both knew what was right. While Socrates had the courage to accept death gracefully, Crito found it difficult to come to terms with the fact that his friend was dying. He sought to save his friend by hook or by crook. Socrates elicits his answer from what Crito already knows. ‘Yet speak if you have anything to say.’ ‘I have nothing to say, Socrates’ (Jowett 11). That same doublethink is still manifested in the war against terrorism, during the Vietnam War and in Guantanamo torture stories when the world’s self-proclaimed keeper seems to shout ‘War is Peace’. Premise: Socrates’ and Orwell’s apprehensions about the future were based on their experiences in the present. A major difference between Winston and Socrates lies in the realities they could relate to. Socrates wanted people to find by themselves what two twos would make, instead of cramming the answer. Winston was told two twos would not always make four. His experiences stem from Orwell’s imagination, which in turn was based on the contemporary realities post-Second World War, Stalinism and the rapid pace at which science was advancing (novelguide.com). Based on these, he attempted to forecast what it could be like forty years hence. Conclusion: Socrates or Winston did not really try to do anything. Knowing full well the conditions around them, all that they wanted was to stay true to themselves. Neither Socrates nor Winston was afraid of death. Socrates was fortunate enough not to have to be taken to Room 101. It does not matter whether the prophecy was fulfilled or Orwell was wronged. As for that, whatever Orwell portrayed was already happening in the communist world. He only stretched it further to show how horrible it could get if science aided tyranny. The lessons intended by Socrates and Orwell are more about what not to do rather than what to do. It is not right to dismiss them as failures. Their immediate impact may seem to be little on the society of the day, but that their ideas continue to influence the world beyond the boundaries of space and time speaks volumes about the strength of those ideas. Works Cited Classics in the History of Psychology. A Theory of Human Motivation. August 2000. Novel Analysis 1984. Biography Page. ©1999-2010 Philosophy Pages. Socrates. 9 August 2006. Chicago Literary Club. Life Imitates Art. 6 October 2008. Read More