Socrates Valiant Fight against the Charges - Essay Example

Philosophy Ever since our ‘origination’, we humans are carrying out various physical and mental activities as part of our daily lives and with intended purposes mainly ‘segregating’ ourselves into distinct groups, communities, organizations, countries or states, etc, etc. Among these groupings or identities, people tend maximally associate and identify with their countries or states, and importantly allow the states only to govern them. Although, each individual will be governed by personal principles and other factors, people on the whole will be governed by the state and its laws, and this is the norm from early times. In the earlier days, when monarchy, autocracy and other form of government was the norm, people had to obey to all the laws of the land including unfair and draconian laws and any opposition will land them in trouble. Individuals tended to obey the laws even if it was unfair to them from the moral and personal point of view also. This what Socrates did, when he was unfairly accused of committing crimes against the State. Although, he valiantly fought against the charges throughout, in the end he accepted the State’s verdict and did not indulge in any ‘unlawful’ activities which would have given him personal freedom. So, this paper will analyze why Socrates was right to obey the orders of the state of Athens to take poison, by using Socrates’ arguments. The paper will then discuss how his decision would be supported by a Buddhist Socrates’ valiant fight against the charges Socrates, one of the profound intellectuals the world has seen, was accused by three persons of committing civil crimes against the state, for which he was sentenced to death. Socrates was accused by Anytus, a poet, powerful politician Meletus and Lycon, a supposed orator. He was mainly indicted for being a ‘hyper curious’ person and for being an atheist, who is corrupting the youth. However, Socrates vouched and countered that he did not commit any mistakes against the state and cannot be considered as an enemy of the state. Socrates while refuting both the charges, firstly counters the charge of being a “hyper curious” person who is accused of spreading misinformation. That is, out of curiosity and not due to any ulterior motives, Socrates made inquiries about the origins and functioning of the earth and sky, which is quite contrary to the beliefs of the state or the kingdom. Socrates did not take the stance of an authority who knows and tells, but rather the stance of an inquirer who is curious and open to the ideas of others (Grube). The other charge against him is the intentional ‘seeding’ of unwanted and blasphemous thoughts among the youths against the gods recognized by the State. Socrates counters these two charges valiantly as well as strategically. That is, against the first charge he opines that, it is an old charge, which did not stem from any actual incident and facts but through gossip and prejudice against him, cultivated by certain elements of the society. Socrates then deals with the second charge, which accuses him of being an atheist, who questions the gods revered by the state, and importantly spreading those thoughts among the youth. "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young." (Xenophon 2). For that, he cross-examines Meletus in the court, and through his communication skills extracts a contradiction from Meletus in favor of him. Also, he states that by not declaring allegiance to the Gods of the state, he is actually improving the youths and not corrupting them. That is, by stimulating the youths to think about other options, he is only improving their thought process, and is strengthening the state’s functioning. So, through these valid counters Socrates tried to prove that he did not commit anything unlawful and wrong against the state. Socrates had no fear for death, and so was willing to obey the State’s death sentence While arguing against the charges, he stress to the jurors that he will never ever resort to the usual emotive tricks and arguments for his release. Also, he confirms that, he wound not break down in the court with tears, just to earn the sympathy of the jurors. He further states that he doesn’t want any sympathy but only proper justice to his case. In this situation, he clearly stresses that he does not have any fear for death, and continues to argue his case till the last moment. Even in the last phase of trial, he argues based only on a sound argument and the truth, and does not want to elicit any sympathy from the jurors. Thus, while refuting the charges, Socrates as a form of heroic mentality claims that he is not at all afraid of the death sentence that could be delivered to him. Because he is more concerned about the way, he is presenting himself. That is, he reflects more about whether he is acting, according to his conscience or just defending for the sake of his life. So, while countering the charges, which he thinks borders mostly on the gossip and slander angle, Socrates argues that he did not fear the death. He opines that those who fear death are ignorant of it. They do not know, what exactly happens after the death, so they kind of have a scare in their mind towards it. Socrates on the other hand, considers death as a great blessing, which could only give him comfort relieving him of struggle and torture. At the same time, he chides the people for fearing death as an evil, which will sent them to another world where they will be tortured. So, here again, Socrates shows his heroic qualities by not exhibiting even a trace of apprehension about the impending death. Although, he wishes that youth of the state will take his death as an eye opener, and will follow him in criticizing the state, if it continues to do all the wrong things, he does not want to disobey the laws and try any escape plans. This heroism in times of tragedy and even not accepting the chance to escape thereby obeying to the state validates he was right. That is, by not fearing about death, he comes out with valid arguments that he should obey the state, when Crito comes up with the escape plans. Socrates arguments against the escape plans provided by Crito and his acceptance of the State Crito, disturbed by the thought of Socrates’ execution meets him in the jail and requests him to escape. Socrates refuses to escape but Crito argues with him and tries to convince Socrates to listen to his advice. Socrates also reasons with Crito providing his thoughts about justice and injustice. The premises presented by Socrates during their discussion bring forth the views of Socrates and his attitude regarding how one should respond to injustice and how one should not disobey the state. Socrates never falters from his stance and states that he is guided by his reasons and not by the opinion of unjust people. Even if he has been falsely charged, he believes that injustice cannot be retaliated by breaking the laws of the State. This key attitude clearly proves that Socrates was right in obeying to the state. He thinks it is better to die than to lead a life of disgrace. Ultimately he succeeds in persuading Crito by mentioning that it would be unjust to break the rules of the same State which had nurtured Socrates and his children. So, Socrates presents his premises in a logical manner and their truth drives home the point he wants to make. Another premise that Socrates makes is that one should lead an honorable life, “And a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable one- that holds also?” (Plato 47). To prove his statement, he tells Crito that if he leaves Athens without the assent of Athenians, then it will amount to doing wrong. And doing wrong purposely will be evil and disgraceful. Listening to this, Crito agrees that one should avoid doing wrong. Socrates then asks Crito that is it right to harm the person who has injured you? By posing this question Socrates tries to convince Crito that evil cannot be retaliated by evil. “Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him”. (Plato 48). Escaping Athens in reprisal for the injustice done to him is unjust. Socrates tells that if he escapes Athens, then it will be against the principles that he stood for throughout his life. His life will be saved but he will lose his honor and he thinks that death is better than dishonorable life. This again proves that Socrates had valid points and is right in obeying to the state. The premise made by Socrates is true, for life lead with honor and respect, is worth living. A short but good life is better than a long life which is disgraceful and dishonorable. If Socrates escapes Athens and flees to some other State, then people will suspect him and contempt him for breaking the laws of his State. If a person who preaches sincerity throughout his life cons someone to save his life, then his life will be saved but people will not respect him. The last premise made by Socrates relates to the government of the State which has provided him many things in his life. He asks Crito how he will face the government if it interrogates him for breaking the laws of the State. Socrates presents the questions that may be asked by the government. Through those questions Socrates puts forth his thought that the State is more important than his parents or relations, “Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding?” (Plato 50). Thus, proving that he has taken the right decision in accepting the death sentence. Socrates tells Crito that if he escapes Athens, it will result in disrespect for the laws of the State. And he will feel guilty, making his life unhappy forever. The last premise of Socrates is true; for he is right when he says that one should abide by the laws of his country. If people started breaking laws then there will chaos all over the country. The premise about the government is relevant to Socrates’ verdict for he thinks that by escaping Athens he will break the laws of the State. And the State of Athens has given him life and he cannot think of disobeying his State which he respects more than his parents. Thus, Socrates is very clear with his concepts about his loyalty to the State. The wording used by him is very specific as he succeeds in convincing Crito that escaping Athens, for the fear of death was unjust and inappropriate for a man like Socrates who always followed good values. Thus, it again process that, he is right in obeying the State and accepting the death sentence. Socrates’ acceptance of death as part of his obeying to state, correlates to Buddhism As mentioned discussed above, Socrates states that a person should be prepared to die or receive death, as he/she should expect that death would arrive any time in their lives. In that case, the human will accept death and will even greet it on its arrival, as Socrates did as part of his decision to obey the laws. This decision to accept and prepare for the death is in line with the Buddhist philosophy regarding life and death. That is, according to Buddhist teachings, any individual cannot live eternally and death could come, so they have to accept and prepare for it with a happy frame of mind, without showing any fear about the impeding death. “In the teaching of the Buddha, all of us will pass away eventually as a part in the natural process of birth, old-age and death and that we should always keep in mind the impermanence of life” (Tang). According to Socrates, the other reason, why the person who is going to die, should prepare for it is because it will give the opportunity for the person to experience the separation of physical body and mental mind. Actually, the separation of body and soul as part of the preparation to die is the philosophers ideal moment. This is because at that moment of death only, the two integral parts of human, the body and the soul will separate. The other reason why Socrates counsels about preparing to die is because at the time of eventual death only, the soul will actually gain the truest form of knowledge. This perspective of Socrates was spelled out by Plato in his work Phaedo, "He who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements when they associate with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge--who, if not he, is likely to attain to the knowledge of true being?" (Plato). This perspective of Socrates of how soul will separate from the body after the death is also believed by the Buddhists. According to them, At when the soul separates from the body, it takes with it all of the subtle imprints from that life and previous ones. Then, this very subtle mind or consciousness and the very subtle wind upon which it rides then arises into an intermediate state (bardo) being which has a subtle (non-physical) body that can move through solid objects, travel anywhere just by thinking of that place, and so on (Hawter). The important argument of Socrates about death, which also facilitates him to take decision of abiding the state laws, is the concept of afterlife. That is, as a continuation to his belief of how soul separates from the body, Socrates believes that there is an afterlife for every human being. This way, the soul of the human will continue to exist, even after the death in an immortal state. So, Socrates is against the perspective that soul is destroyed when the human being dies, and this is belief is fully supported by the Buddhists. According to Buddhist beliefs, the soul of the body will transverse and will inhabit another body, thus reincarnating into another person. This belief about the existence of soul is the reason for the Buddhists beliefs in reincarnation. As the Buddhist spiritual leader, Dalai Lama is only chosen on the basis of reincarnation, it is clear that Buddhist clearly believe in the existence of soul, even after a person’s death. “To Buddhism, however, death is not the end of life, it is merely the end of the body we inhabit in this life, but our spirit will still remain and seek out through the need of attachment, attachment to a new body and new life.” (Tang). As Socrates through his “Cyclical argument” states that the soul initiates or carries forward the life and it will not cease to exist, his decision to die and wish to live as a contented soul, will be fully supported by the Buddhists. Works Cited Grube, G. M. A. The Trial and Death of Socrates. 3rd Ed. Hackett Pub Co Inc. 2001. Hawter, Pende. The Spiritual needs of the Dying: A Buddhist Perspective. 19 April 2010 http://www.buddhanet.net/spirit_d.htm Plato. Dialogues of Plato: Containing the Apology of Socrates, Crito, Phaedo and Protogoras. READ BOOK. 2008. Tang, Thich Nguyen. Buddhist View on Death and Rebirth. 19 April 2010. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/viewdeath.html Xenophon. The Memorabilia. Kessinger Publishing. 2004 Read More