Acquisition of Knowledge and Understanding of Life - Essay Example

due: Socrates Trial and Death Introduction Socrates was a popular philosopher in Athens, Greece. He led a rather controversial philosophical life. He was a unique philosopher who preferred addressing the public in markets and other public places instead of sitting indoors and writing books like many philosophers did. His philosophical comments and teachings however did not go well with some people especially politicians in the society. His rather impious approach to Athens’s beliefs and introduction of his own gods landed him in a court of law where he was sentenced to death at the age of seventy years (Grube, Anthony & Cooper 9). In this paper, investigation will be done on some events leading to his trial and death. The discussion will be based on a martyr and an anti-democratic interpretation. The martyr interpretation The dialog on apology starts on a rather ironical manner. It is not an apology in the real sense but a conversation between Socrates and the jury during his trial. He had been blamed of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, in addition to invention of new deities and corruption of the youths of Athens. In this scenario, he sacrifices himself to be tried for the sake of the State of Athens, which he believes is rotten with bad practices of worshiped unworthy gods. In his trial, he pays less respect to the formalities of a court, and goes to an extent of proclaiming that since he is inexperienced with the law courts, he will speak in a manner accustomed to him. He promises to speak with total honesty and directness. In an attempt to prove his innocence, he claims that he is the wisest man, after which he recognizes his ignorance and corrects himself by stating that he knows nothing. He is ready to take any verdict, believing that it will seal his fate as the person who tried to question and correct the seemingly wise men. The youths consider him a hero who deserves nothing else but the authority to continue with his role of correcting the state. His accusers, Meletus and the other people he embarrassed, treated him with hatred and anger. They are determined to see him silenced forever. In his dialog with Meletus, he tries to embarrass him. Socrates feels very important and likens himself to a gadfly which stings the lazy horse, the Athenian state. His death would be a sacrifice just like a martyr who dies to save the rest of the humankind. He threatens the state that in case it sentences him to death; it will fall into a deep sleep. The death penalty seals his fate, despite his request to pay a fine instead. Just like a martyr, he fearlessly agrees the penalty stating that it would be foolish to fear death since it is only God who knows what happens after death. He however warns the jurymen that by silencing him, they have done more harm to themselves than to him (Grube et al. 11). Anti-democratic interpretation Socrates’ case is biased. In a more critical analysis of the situation, he is denied justice. He is not allowed a chance to get an advocate who can lobby his case. It is a one man against a group of jurists’ scenario. This means the decision finally arrived at by the jury may have been biased. The jurymen could have ruled out of the contempt held against Socrates by Melletus who is the primary reason for Socrates standing in front of the jurymen. The Athenian youths are in favor of Socrates who they believe is a redeemer of their nation out of his courage and fearlessness in challenging the government. If the youths could have been allowed a chance to testify for Socrates, he could have escaped the death sentence. In an attempt to defend himself on democratic rights, he explains the source of his behavior as having emanated from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi, which claimed he was the wisest of all men. Being such a wise man, he considered it his duty to question the authorities and the other less wise men for how they conducted the state of affairs in Athens. In his thinking, he may have thought that he was democratically right. Socrates intention of the questioning was to expose their false wisdom, which he thought was ignorance. His questioning is however translated as lack of respect and malice towards the other wise men. The other wise men are however contemptuous of him and use this as a reason for putting him on trial, which they make sure he loses (Stone 28). When Socrates is finally guilty by a small margin, the jurymen try to exercise democracy by telling him to suggest a penalty. Despite him giving an option of paying a fine, the jury rejects his suggestion and condemns him to a death sentence (Stone 30). Comparisons of the two interpretations Both the martyr and the anti-democratic interpretations are relevant and strong. However, according to me, the martyr interpretation looks more plausible. In the apology, he tries to bring out the importance of every man showing responsibility for his moral attitudes, without being forced by the state. He was a strong advocate for the young people. He talked against them being used as sycophants by the state. Consequently, he was seen as the mouthpiece of the weak and the ordinary who could not challenge the state. His conversations were aimed at the discovery of the truth, and acquisition of knowledge and understanding of life and its values. He believed that the values of life formed the basis of the good life, allowing for the pursuit of intellect. He preached the importance knowledge as a virtual. He believed men do wrong out of failure to know any better. As a real activist for the liberty and good of the common man, he wanted the people to become like gods. The gods love doing right because it is right. Doing otherwise may be a source of evil. Socrates tries to find an understanding of piety, using Euthyphro’s case who had gone to court to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates finds it interesting for a respected priest like Euthyphro to prosecute his father. Socrates seeks to find a definition of piety from Euthyphro, who considered himself an authority on piety (Grube et al. 1). Socrates is found guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, in addition to introducing new gods. The jury also finds him guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth, by teaching them to disregard the requirements by the state to worship certain gods. Evidence by historians has shown that the accusers, led by Melletus, focused more attention on the alleged religious crimes. A historian by the name James A. Colaiaco gives more weight to the charge of impiety, leading to Socrates’ sentence to death. Colaico observed that impiety received more prosecutorial attention as compared to political sins, based on Plato’s apology. The jury’s projection of a small charge such as impiety was a manifestation of their long-harbored grievances against Socrates (Grube et al. 2). Justification From the writings of Plato, focus is given on the events that surrounded the trial and death of Socrates. The state charged Socrates of corrupting the youth. Socrates reaches his martyrdom when he readily agreed the death sentence, without showing any fear. His strongly believed in the cause of his teachings and to him not even death could intimidate him. The significance of his death is seen in his followers and the legacy of his ideas which continued long after his death (Grube et al. 20). One of the major charges against him was on impiety. Like a hero, Socrates was totally against the beliefs set by the society. They believed in gods which according to Socrates were just benevolent beings accorded unnecessary praise. Instead of acknowledging the accepted public gods of the city, he introduced his gods. His introduction of new gods was in violation of the teachings of faith of the society. The Greek cities would usually modify their roster of public gods. This means the introduction of new gods was not a new trend in Athens since popular poets would do so. His only crime was introducing new gods on his own without following the changes in a formal and accepted religious criterion. When finally sentenced to death, Socrates dismissed the idea by his best friend, Crito, of escaping from the death sentence in prison. In the light of his beliefs, Socrates was ethically correct in refusing the escape plan from the prison. He believed in the justification of his actions. He believed that the verdict, which was the death, had to be carried out even if it had not been reached at correctly. By accepting the laws of the Athens, he had readily accepted to take the verdict, even if it was unjust. Not even Crito’s concerns of Socrates and his associates could prevent him from accepting the verdict. This shows that Socrates valued the state of his soul more importantly than the physical life. His life was ruled by justice and morals rather than emotions. His beliefs could not allow him to commit unjust acts, even if it was in retaliation to an unjust act t because he believed this would ruin his soul. It was therefore ethically correct for Socrates to refuse escaping from prison, which would have comprised what he had believed in for the seventy years of his life (Stone 59). Conclusion It can be seen that the martyr interpretation and anti-democratic interpretation of Socrates trial and death have some correlation. The anti-democratic approach, however, has some weaknesses, in that philosophers were allowed to express their opinion on various aspects of life. They had the liberty to point out some aspects of life which needed to be corrected, and that was not a reason enough for prosecuting them. Just like politicians who would address some contentious issues in the society, the philosophers were not limited in this. However, piety was regarded as an important aspect of life. Even though the Greeks did not go to churches then, they believed in their gods. That is why when Socrates seems to disregard the gods and introduce his own; he is treated with total ruthlessness. Socrates’ trial produced the first martyr for free speech. As observed by I.F Stone, Socrates needed a cup of hemlock to fulfill his mission of martyrdom, just like Jesus needed the cross to fulfill his mission of salvation for all. Works cited Grube, George Maximilian Anthony, and John M. Cooper. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Hackett Publishing, 1981. Stone, I F. The Trial of Socrates. London: Pimlico, 1997. Print. Read More