Character of Socrates - Essay Example

? Character of Socrates The character of Socrates at the court and during his conversation with Crito is worth discussing and shedding light. This paper aims to compare and contrast in essence the problems of Socrates as discovered by Nietzsche, as seen in the court and as revealed in talks with Crito. The paper initially compares, then contrasts and eventually concludes about the character of Socrates. This is done by taking into account what is said by Nietzsche about Socrates’ problems in TI, as Socrates talks with Crito and as seen in Apology. Some of the attributes of Socrates as discovered by Nietzsche are similar to the ones seen in Apology, when Socrates appeared in court and when he talked with one of his friends Crito. There are certain characteristics of Socrates, which did not change, even though his life became quite tough. These include: I. Being argumentative II. His acts of being a real criminal III. Being erotic IV. Being controversial V. Being ironical I. Argumentative Socrates was actually argumentative (Friedrich 33). He began his speech by arguing on how the problem he faced was massive; he stated that his accusers hardly uttered a word of truth about him. He went onto further state that his accusers may go ahead and tell the men of Athens that Socrates deceives people through his eloquence. He also goes onto declare that using the same words is like a known habit to Socrates, since it was seen in the money changer’s table and agora among other places. Socrates claimed that he had been accused by many dangerous people, such as Anytus. He told the people that the accusations were quite false. Accusations included the fact that Socrates was termed as an old person, because he was seventy years of age. Such accusations had been going on for a long time; hence it possessed many people’s minds. (Walter and Hollingdale, 67). In his talk with Crito, he tried to prove that some opinions need to be regarded, while others may be dismissed. The following lines elucidates this ‘Tell me, then, whether I am right in saying that some opinions, and the opinions of some men only, are to be valued, and other opinions, and the opinions of other men, are not to be valued’. Socrates established that this was one of his principles. He further explained that the bad opinions need no consideration, but good ones need careful deliberation. He explained that this was the reason for him not escaping to a nearby safe country. He took one-step further and stated that his opinions are better than the rest, since he regarded himself as a wise man. The opinions of unwise people are evil and therefore require no attention. II. Being a typical criminal Nietzsche discovered Socrates as a typical criminal. Nietzsche validates this fact by stating that in Apology, Socrates, in the presence of judges confronted everyone without any sort of fear or remorse. By defiantly asking Meletus to name the improver of the youth, he implied that he was the youth’s corrupter. Furthermore, one of the foreigners also told Socrates that he was full of worst appetites and vices. At this remark, Socrates actually agreed with the foreigner, stating ‘You know me sir’, showing that someone who barely knew Socrates also found him to be a criminal. Moreover, Nietzsche also used the appearance of Socrates to claim that since Socrates was so ugly, he was ugly in spirit, as well, as elucidated by ‘monstrous in appearance, monstrous in spirit. III. Socrates was erotic Socrates was quite erotic, as mentioned by Nietzsche. He told men of Athens that he was not going to change his way of living, even if he had to die many times. He told people not to interrupt him, while he was delivering his speech, as shown in Apology in these lines ‘And I must remind you that you are not to interrupt me if I speak in my accustomed manner’. (Walter and Hollingdale, 162). He claimed that he might be a corrupter of youth by stating that he never misled them intentionally. By asking Meletus, the name of the improver of the youth indicates that he accepted himself to be there corrupter. He did not listen to his friend, Crito’s advice, by believing that he was guided by reason. He took Crito’s help as vanity and amusement because he stated that he was just being frightened like a child via death, imprisonments and confiscations. Furthermore, he even refused to escape, even though he was advised by Crito to undertake this for the sake of his children. Perhaps, this is why he is also regarded as a corrupter of youth. Moreover, he appealed to the competitive side of the Greeks, since the Greeks of those times were highly proud of their rich culture. Socrates challenged their culture and their beliefs. IV. Socrates was controversial Socrates was actually a great misunderstanding. He said he was afraid of his accusers and he believed that it was not easy for him to win the case since he saw the nature of the case to be difficult. Therefore, he waited for God’s will. In a paradoxical way, he also proves that he is not afraid of his accusers in the court since he tells Meletus right on the face that he is the wrongdoer and not Socrates. This is mentioned in Apology, when Socrates states in the court ‘O men of Athens, that Meletus is a doer of evil, and the evil is that he makes a joke of a serious matter, and is too ready at bringing other men to trial from a pretended zeal and interest about matters in which he really never had the smallest interest’. In addition, he asked the men of Athens not to interrupt him even if he talked extravagantly. He further proved that he was known to be wise by a death man; Chaerephon and that the only person who could confirm the truth of the story was his brother who was in court. Additionally, believing that Anytus and Meletus were not going to injure him since bad men could not injure anyone and praying to God not to be killed by the state illustrates that Socrates may have wanted to be forgiven. His beseech of forgiveness is also seen when he said he never misled the youths intentionally. However, he goes ahead and says his punishment was to be maintained in Prytaneum. He also stated, in his talks with Crito that he did not want any injustice, even in matters dealing with his own life. He saw injustice as an escape and committing evil. Therefore, he chose not to escape. As he states in Crito, ‘But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?’, when Crito got concerned about the reaction of the people against Socrates’ friends, who did nothing to save him. He did not leave the prison in the name of justice and for the basic principle of doing something against the law (Irwin, 10). He did not want to overthrow the state even after realizing that state had given unjust sentence. However, towards the end he was into the idea of escaping, merely to get his friend such as Crito into trouble. The reader may ponder; why would someone do that to his own friends, who wanted to protect him? V. Ironical Socrates was actually ironical. He assured people that it was his first time being in a court of law and he could not speak English fluently since he was too old. He resorted to his native tongue, which is not expected on such a learned person and someone who claims to be wise (Irwin, 64). His irony is also revealed in his talks with Crito. He claimed that he wanted to live according to how his master wanted him but not according to many peoples’ ideas. He additionally said he did not want to suffer evil by following other people’s opinions. He did not believe in the masses, he stated that the following of one person, who may be a dictator, is actually quite good, as long as that one individual acts justly and does good, compared to the evil of the crowd. In the dialogue with Crito, this is explained by the following lines, ‘In the matter of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world’. However, his character appears ironical and paradoxical, when he asked the Athenians whether he should escape or abstain. However, there are several instances where Socrates character differs, if analyzed both from Crito’s perspective and that from Apology in TI. This can be illustrated with the use of following perspectives. I. Socrates being viewed as unwise II. Socrates being sarcastic III. Socrates being exaggerative I. Being unwise Nietzsche regards Socrates to be unwise, for Socrates claimed that living was like being sick for an extended period. This statement contradict that Socrates was a wise man. Socrates was not wise and a decadent as shown by his actions of not valuing life at all (Friedrich 83). In addition, betraying his life when he could be saved shows that he did not value his life. He was willing to leave his own children as orphans and help other children on the street by educating them. Crito, who is one of the dearest friends of Socrates also states that it was like betraying his children, as shown in this dialogue of Crito ‘I should say that you were betraying your children; for you might bring them up and educate them; instead of which you go away and leave them’. Socrates chose the easier way that of death, rather than the harder way, which is running away. He made his friends valueless, when he did not take their help in consideration. He showed in no way that, he valued life. Towards the end of his conversation with Crito, he became a bit humble and talked about escaping to a friendly country to hide, showing that he had started to value his life more, thus becoming a bit wise (Wise, 213). II. Sarcasm Apology illustrates his sarcasm, when he approached his accusers in court and stated his enemies as his friends. He sarcastically probes Meletus to tell the people the name of the improver of the youth, since Meletus had undergone the pain of discovering the name of the corrupter. At his extremely sarcastic tone, even Meletus had become silent. Socrates eventually ended up proving that Meletus had no business interfering in the affairs of the youth. He also stated that he was accused falsely due to malice and envy. He stated that his accusers were not up to the mark and he was fighting with shadows in his defense, and he was not getting any answers (Irwin, 94). His conversation with Crito is not sarcastic. He was a bit sarcastic at first, but after he had realized the reality, he let go off the sarcasm. III. Exaggeration Socrates had a way of exaggerating, as seen in Apology. He stated that philosophers were not wise and made enemies of them (Friedrich, 113). He also claimed that politicians were actually foolish compared to the common man. He thought that the poets were dithyrambic and tragic. He came to this conclusion because the poets were not able to teach him anything about their own writings. This illustrated the fact that Socrates considered himself more wise than poets and politicians. He found the same thing in artisans, who taught everything they knew. This showed that it overshadowed their wisdom (West 243). This origins from this idea come from Plato’s Apology, which mentions this fact in the following lines ‘for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom’. In this way, Socrates made it seem like he was wiser. This was absurd because one cannot claim to be wiser than people who are experts in their field of knowledge. The way he tells people that he had no idea where to go after he escape made everyone laugh and showed Socrates’ highly exaggerated nature (Friedrich, 123). To the contrary, he proved himself to be unwise, in the court when he opted not to answer the last question of Crito, when he was told to do so. He succumbed to God’s will and discovered it was a better option (Irwin, 104). This is illustrated, when he finally proves his point to Crito, in his dialogues and states ‘Then let me follow the intimations of the will of God’. In this way, in his talks with Crito, he seems less exaggerated, if compared with that in Apology. Conclusion The paper shows Socrates was a contradictory figure, represented in different ways by various scholars. As discovered by Nietzsche, Socrates did not change much, illustrating that he was a principled man. However, Socrates showed that even though he claimed to be different from other people, he feared death like every normal human being, when he realized that escape would have been a better option. Works cited Friedrich, Nietzsche .Twilight of the idols .New York: Vintage, 1895. Irwin, Terence. Plato's Ethics Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Walter Kaufmann and Hollingdale Richard .Twilight of idols. New York: Vintage, 1967. West Timothy. Plato's Apology of Socrates. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979. Read More