Question 2: Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?
Socrates: A Man For His People
Defining Socrates as either a Martyr or simply a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is an impossible objective. Claiming that Socrates was a Martyr is an understandable proclamation when his methods of proposing ideas are analyzed and considered. The first sign of this was his discussion of piety and impiety with Euthyphro. It appears as though Socrates uses trickery and wit to transform, or corrupt Euthyphro’s mind frame towards his own beliefs. Without further investigation, the charges of “Corrupting the Youth” would seem to be legitimate. However, Socrates’’ intentions require a more in depth analysis to reveal their true reason.
Was Socrates a corrupt man, attempting to employ his corruption upon the youth? Or was Socrates a man who realized the importance of, as he said himself: “Stinging the lazy horse that is Athens, provoking it into action”? I believe Socrates realized he possessed philosophies that were vital for the future of Athens, and his true intentions were to spread this wealth of knowledge with his society for the benefit of the whole. Claiming that Socrates was either a martyr or a man willing to die for his beliefs can be proven incorrect for the same reason. That reason was his intent behind his actions.
Defining Socrates as a martyr is understandable, especially when he claims that: “If the punishment were just he would be celebrated as a hero”. While on the surface this sounds a lot like the actions of someone seeking sympathy and admiration, this definition is broken when taking into mind his real intentions. Socrates’ push for educating Athens would portrait that he is worried about the people and not himself, and therefore not a martyr. When claiming him a man willing to die for his beliefs, the same principal can be applied to separate Socrates from this description. Death would only prevent Socrates from his ability to inform, and to teach the people. There is a large difference between corrupting, and educating. Socrates was a man of great knowledge, who had the power to educate, and to evolve Athens. He knew this, and realized that he must stay alive in order to carry out his teachings. For this reason, it is not adequate to say that he was willing to die for his beliefs.
The main point that removes either of the two labels from Socrates was the intentions behind his actions. He knew what Athens needed to become successful in the future. And although some of the things he said or did throughout the trials would say differently, he was a man living for his people.
Well done! This analysis is strong because it sheds light on both sides of the argument, while still providing an clear position. You are correct to use the 'gadfly' quotation to prove Socrates' importance in the Athenian community. As you demonstrate, the Socratic method is to help (through dialogue) to turn someone's attention to higher truths: this is an important function for the people. To improve this response, I would try to incorporate real-life examples of Socrates-figures: is there anyone in today's world who can be seen both as a martyr and as vital to the community?
ReplyDelete