Was Socrates a martyr?
This is somewhat unsettling; but, definitionally Socrates was a martyr. He died for corrupting the youth in Athens, Greece, according to the charges that were leveled upon him.
Would you label Socrates as a martyr, and is that label deserved?
Would you label Socrates as a martyr, and is that label deserved?
Comments (51)
He was 70 years old, probably didn't fancy facing life as an exile, and by the scanty accounts, did fancy thumbing his nose at the establishment.
The question remains: Just what was he proving?
The concept of martyr cannot be applied to Socrates because he was a philosopher not a Christian or Islamic who died in pursue of faith.
According to Cambridge dictionary, martyr is defined as: [i]a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it
mártir; a Christian/Islamic/religious martyr.[/i]
Socrates was a victim of an ignorant system. Quite the opposite of being a "martyr"
:up:
I only wonder because he died for a cause...
Of living the philosophical life as he did.
Philosophy as a way of life, with Socrates...
I don't think so, I think Nietzsche was right in that he was tired of life and killed himself by trolling Athenian elites. Sort of like when forum members can't get themselves to leave the forum, and go out in a frenzy of insults and behaviors that are in obvious breach of forum rules... a suicide by Mod type of thing.
So Hypatia of Alexandria, then.
I do not think he was a martyr for his beliefs as much he was a martyr for refusing to hold his tongue. He stood up to censorship, stood by his God-given right to speak, and proved hed rather die than to submit.
I would say that he was proving his philosophy by example. If he would have accepted exile he would have implicitly abandoned his philosophy.
He was showing that he lived his life to the extent that he did not fear death.
It does say "or political" as a kind of BTW, which would astonish a lot of freedom-fighters and revolutionary heroes. You can get killed for demanding free speech in China, or home rule in Ireland. And you can certainly get killed for saying there must be life on other planets. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/was-giordano-bruno-burned-at-the-stake-for-believing-in-exoplanets/ IOW - a martyr to science.
Quoting TheMadMan
Yes, I got that part, but it doesn't amount to martyrdom. However, I think the defence of free speech does. This:
Quoting NOS4A2
... though I think he would have left God out of it.
It seems to me that Socrates did die for a cause... Yet, it would be hard to pin down Socrates as ideologically driven to do so, or am I wrong on this?
For example: Martyrs (Shaheed) And Their Status In Islam. Ibn Taymiyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: These are the four degrees of Allahs slaves: the best of them are the Prophets, then the Siddeeqs, then the martyrs, then the righteous. [Majmoo al-Fataawa (2/223)]
Look, this is interesting: "The words of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) are that the most dignified way to die is to be martyred" Martyrdom in Islam
In typical Socratic fashion, this raises more questions than it answers. Why would he consider that death was for him preferable to life? We are reminded of the Socratic claim that the unexamined life is not worth living. But exile would not have prevented him from philosophizing. So why this conclusion?
Although he was 70 years old there is no indication of poor health or diminished capacity. In fact he had a young son. So neither the conjecture that he was too old to travel or too infirm to live holds up.
Socrates was confronted with the fundamental tension between philosophy and the city. He questioned the ancient traditions of the city. Such questioning is impious. Teaching the youth to question is corruptive.
At the root of such questioning is the question of whether something is good simply because it it part of the traditional foundations of the city. To consider this question is to philosophize. Doing so is to favor philosophy over the city. And yet, Socrates demonstrated his civil piety by complying with the judgment of the jury. He does not put himself or the pursuit of philosophy above the law.
In Plato's Apology Socrates points to the comic poet Aristophanes, who in his play the Clouds accuses Socrates of the things he will at a much later date be accused of at trial. He calls on Socrates and philosophy to be responsible for what they say. Plato's response is his own comic poetry, the Republic, a play in philosophy takes full responsibility through the philosopher/kings. In other words, philosophy and public life can only be reconciled in the unlikely event that philosophers rule. They are persuaded to rule because they owe something to the city, that is, they have a responsibility to the city.
Cicero said:
(Tusculan Disputations V 1011)
Socrates was the first political philosopher. His concern was how we ought to live. And this includes how we ought to die. His was not the death of a martyr but the death of a philosopher.
It was left to the youth he "corrupted" to figure out how to bring into harmony the tension between philosophy and the city. As Nietzsche says:
(BGE,211)
Precisely. The Athenians were well-aware of and allowed, even encouraged, philosophy & philosophers (how else did it floruit and spread all over the globe?) - they were, if I recall correctly, well-respected citizens.
If I may be so bold as to conjecture - the first, Socrates is considered the Father of philosophy, usually becomes and actually is an alien to his/her own people (new ideas those days were looked upon with suspicion, out-group) and so what befell Socrates is not exactly surprising. It was not a matter of if but when he would be executed/exiled by Athens.
Of course him being not a martyr does nothing to diminish his signifcance to the world. He ranks among those rare folks who practice what they preach and I respect him for that despite the fact that he, like Aristotle, might've condoned, nay justified, slavery and all the other societal maladies of their time. We have the advantage of hindsight which they say, rightly so, is 20/20, as will our children and their children.
As sometimes you quote, 180 Proof,
[quote=Baruch Spinoza]I don't know how to do philosphy without being a disturber of the peace.[/quote]
For if I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue
Quoting Agent Smith
:fire:
By some people. Not me. Just because there are lots of examples from their writings, I'm not letting the clerics suborn yet another word for their exclusive use. And certainly not by the nations who raise up statues to their murdered heroes.
Quoting NOS4A2
Who said this? I heard Socrates didn't write things down. Even if it's a direct oral quote "the god" - possibly Apollo - or even "the gods"; without citing an actual name, of which all Greek deities had at least one, doesn't have a capital.
Well, certainly Socrates was condemned to death for examining the lives of others and himself.
Yes, especially the ruling elite, who were not above reproach, but didn't like to be reproached. They were afraid that, being popular with young men, he could foment dissent.
He accepted his punishment but did not accept that he was no longer a citizen. He performed the work of being a mid-wife for the birth of thoughts till his last breath. With that in mind, I think Plato was saying that there was no way to get rid of him. The purpose of Phaedo being, in part, something like Auden speaking of the death of W.B. Yeats:
You raise interesting questions about how we think of Socrates.
What we know of him comes mainly via Plato.
From what I remember, I think his earlier Dialogues are stories of the historical figure Socrates, then it seems he used him in a more fictional way.
Socrates constantly questioned the societal and political values; he was seen as a threat to the status quo. So much so that he was eventually put on trial for corrupting the youth and for impiety i.e. not worshipping the correct Gods.
As can be seen, there are umpteen variations on a theme. Different interpretations of the dialogues.
So, perhaps in that sense 'Socrates' was a martyr to Plato's cause. Which was what?
To firmly establish and maintain the importance of philosophy?
What kind of philosophy?
The kind that questions our beliefs, assumptions and considers different ways of thinking.
How was this shown to us?
From Plato, we read of Socrates and his debates with other characters...introducing 'Dangerous Ideas'.
How do we know if what we read is true?
The Socratic Dialogues are stories. Fiction. What do we take as 'truth'?
Is it true that:
Quoting Fooloso4
As such, it doesn't matter what label we attach to Socrates.
What matters is the effect of the stories on how we live; what we love and why we think the way we do.
It's about coming to know ourselves; learning how to do that...perhaps to find some kind of harmony between our passions and reason. Or to disturb the peace of our self-satisfied slumbers.
Reading the Dialogues as Fiction. Way to go, Plato :sparkle:
The Greek term is transliterated "poetry". The root of the word poiesis means to make. Here it is the making of images in words. It connotes both the image of the philosopher Socrates and the philosopher as an image maker.
In the Apology Socrates was accused of making new gods.
Lest we regard this as a quaint outmoded notion of philosophy, Wittgenstein said:
Plato indicates that even then the issue of the relationship between philosophy and poetry was old;
Yes, I would describe Socrates as a martyr. As far as I understand the circumstances around his death, Socrates was condemned to death by the Aristocracy for poisoning the minds of the youth. Is this correct?
I think it matters in a historical context of how the progression of ideas started out in western philosophy. Maybe because he became a martyr, it popularized and solidified greek philosophy into history better than if he hadn't become a martyr.
Thanks for this.
As usual, your thoughts and quotes spark even more questions and ideas.
I'm taking time out now for 4 weeks. Glad to see you picking up your pen, again :sparkle:
Almost a Pavlovian response to Plato?!
Quoting Amity
Yes, so says dramatizes Plato. Myth-making PR. :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
You once asked in the feedback of your Short Story 'Felice' why or how readers 'pegged you for the scribbler - style, plot, character, (peculiar) word choices, themes'.
The question stayed in my mind because I didn't really know how to answer it.
I think @Jamal mentioned your use of striking similes and metaphors.
I'm about to start a short course: 'How to Read a Novel'.
The study includes 4 books, each to be analysed for a certain aspect: Plot, Setting, Characterisation, and Dialogue. Possibly also specific literary techniques/tools...
I've been wondering how you and others read or would re-read any of Plato's Dialogues as literature.
For example: How to Read 'The Symposium'.
Are certain dialogues easier or more entertaining/educational than others?
For a beginner...perhaps the earlier?
What are the more challenging or 'deep'? Rewarding as both literature and philosophy.
How are the readers mystified by creative ambiguity? Other techniques to dramatise philosophy.
@Shawn - apologies for going off-topic. However, I think this might interest you too?
Given his deep suspicion of poetry, I doubt Plato wrote his Dialogues, dramatic and stylized as they may be, to be read only or principally as 'literature' for their literary qualities. I agree with (platonist) Iris Murdoch's differentiation of philosophical texts and literary texts, and the different implications for reading them (pardon if you're familiar with this video, I've posted it recently elsewhere):
pt. 1 of 5 (differentiates them)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m47A0AmqxQE
What do you think?
A work of fiction; but, a different kind of fiction? Maybe philosophy is a different kind of fiction... :chin:
Thanks, I missed that. I'll take time later to view and consider :up:
Quoting Shawn
Maybe...part of our story-telling... :chin:
Plato is unique in how his Socrates, whether he was factual or not, is the narrator. I haven't seen any other philosopher apart from Plato that utilizes any narrator or narration in their works.
Yes. Plato keeps himself well out of the philosophical play. Nevertheless, he is most certainly there.
The invisible man pulling the strings...
Quoting Shawn
I don't know enough about other philosophers' use of narrators or how they promote their philosophy.
Interesting to consider though :up:
Well, Socrates was a man on a mission and his best student took the gauntlet after his death and glorified him like none other. Didn't Socrates die a noble death?
Did Plato glorify the historical Socrates or himself?
I wondered about the difference between them, and found this:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates/Socrates-versus-Plato
Given the stature of Socrates and the link you provided, I don't see how else to describe Socrates as a man with incredible integrity. This fact should answer the question as to why Socrates didn't abandon Athens and possibly be called a hypocrite* by his enemies.
* Or a sophist.
I think Murdoch speaks for herself and not for philosophy or poetry. In the video she is quoted as saying
(3:54)
While I think it is certainly true that Plato attempts to clarify, I think it also true that part of what he attempts to clarify is the ontological and epistemological mystery. Not in order to demystify but to allow the mystery to stand. Mystikos in the Greek sense of secret, not revealed or disclosed or known. Plato plays on the double sense of hidden/revealed and uninitiated/ initiated. In the Republic the philosophers are philosophers because they have undergone a transcendent and transformative experience. But this imagined philosopher is at odds with Socrates, who knows that he does not know, as well as with the characterization of the philosopher in the Symposium as one who desires to be wise but is not. The Socratic philosopher is one who pursues but does not possess wisdom beyond the human wisdom of knowing he or she is ignorant.
Looked at from the side of poetry or literature, I think it questionable that it is to be read:
Quoting 180 Proof
It should be kept in mind that at the Plato lived the poets were the primary source of public education. They serves not simply to entertain but to educate. A fundamental question for Plato is, who will be the educators? In terms of the cave, who are the puppet-masters? Plato took seriously what the poets said about men and gods.
Such philosophical psychology can be found both in Plato and the Greek poets.
As I understand it, Plato's concern was not simply to draw the battle lines in the quarrel between the philosopher and the poet as to present a philosophical poiesis. To this end he made full use of the imagination and its images, including the images of the cave, the divided line, and the philosopher.
Along the same lines, he does not simply take sides in the quarrel between philosophy and sophistry. He makes use of sophistic arguments when we thinks it appropriate in order to persuade. Not in order to make the weaker argument stronger, as the sophist does, but to arrive at the argument that is on its own merits stronger. It is here, with regard to persuasion, that his suspicion of both poetry and sophistry lies.
Both poetry and sophistry are philosophy's competitors in the task of persuasion and education. In addition, he competes against the politicians and theologians, creating his own city, albeit only in speech. A city in which the philosopher rules, in which the sophist (Thrasymachus) is tamed and made an ally, in which the philosopher is the myth maker, and the gods are replaced by the Good.
As to the education of the philosopher - escape from the cave means to free oneself from all puppet-masters, all makers of images, be they poets, sophists, politicians, theologians, and even philosophers.
Thanks for the excellent and learned reply.
I like this:
Quoting Fooloso4
It is how or where we can learn to do this effectively combined with lightness in the serious.
TPF is the best formal/informal venue or avenue I've found.
But my attention is veering towards literature. It's good when there's a combination :sparkle:
Later... :flower:
I think Plato the puppet-master is well aware that there will always be those who fool themselves into believing that having read about the cave that they have thereby escaped it.
It should be noted that there are several stages on the road to freedom from the cave. The image of a transcendent reality outside the cave remains a shadow on the cave wall. Perhaps the best we can do is to become aware of the image-makers, those who shape our opinions, and not mistake our images of the truth for the truth itself.
@Shawn As to the question of martyrdom and guilt, escape from the cave is escape from the city. Socrates was a citizen of the city in the double sense of place or Chora.
The term chora in its original sense means the territory outside the city proper. The Phaedrus is the only Platonic dialogue in which Socrates appears outside the city. In the country he says he has nothing to learn (230d). I will leave the question of whether he could or did learn anything "from the trees" open.
Socrates is atopos, out of place. With regard to the city proper he is out of place because his thinking is cosmopolitan rather than provincial. But outside the city proper he is also out of place. On the one hand he demonstrates his allegiance to the city of Athens, but on the other his philosophical practice is transgressive. This inbetweenness is characteristic of Plato's chora.
The city in its broadest and most general sense is society, the space of human life, our place. In this sense it is not this city or that city, not Athens or Sparta, in which we might find our place. But this place is neither here nor there. At its heart is an indeterminacy. We can argue in favor of or against his choice and why he made it without coming to a clear conclusion. One thing is clear, however, he acted decisively. The ambiguity of life did not lead him to paralysis. However much they may be at odds we must both reason and act.
He did not live his life in fear of or avoidance of death. Here too, however much they are at odds with each other, it is not simply a choice of one or the other. In his jail cell as he is about to die Socrates says:
Alongside the dyads of reason and action and life and death is the dyad of comedy and tragedy. We should not miss the comic element in the above statement to his friends about philosophy and death.
I think you are right.
Thank you :sparkle:
It's time for me to take another very long break.
Talk elsewhere, as usual.
You will be missed.
:flower:
Thanks. Decision not taken lightly. But other interests beckon. Time better spent.
Take care :flower:
Your account of the Chora presented in the Timaeus reminds me of a passage in the Theaetetus:
The translation does not fully capture the Greek in regard to 'place' (topos):
??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ???????.
The word ????????? is to wander around an area the way a vagrant or a military patrol might do.
The ??????? is the same 'necessity' that required starting over again in Timaeus.
There is much to be said in response, but will limit it to a few remarks. They are not intended to argue against but to elaborate on what you said.
In contrast to the abstract nature of much of contemporary philosophy as well as Plato's own abstractions, it should be emphasized just how rooted his work is in our everyday life and concerns.
What he means by ??????? or necessity is not what we typically think of as necessity. What is by necessity is without nous or intellect. It covers such things as physical processes, contingency, chance, motion, power, and the chora. That evil is a necessity means it is without intelligible explanation.
The place of mortal men is not the place of the gods where good and evil are separate "Forms".
The passage from Theaetetus continues:
But this is the exact opposite of what this escape is. To escape our place is to die, and to die is not to be like the immortal gods.
In contrast to the question of why Socrates did not attempt to escape death, here and elsewhere (Phaedo) he proposes we escape life "as quickly as we can". But of course this is not to be taken literally. It is evident that at age 70 he did not take this advice literally. In any case, this raises doubts about martyrdom. And in the Phaedo he raises doubts about hims motivation being suicide because he says it is prohibited.
The dialogue ends with Socrates saying he must go to answer the charges against him.