Socrates The Martyr
Government is upheld through two means: legality and legitimacy. The former is often derived through the usage of laws, armed forces, and court systems. The latter is often derived from the people’s perception, as well as tradition (a certain monarchy might fit as a proper example). While the former may seem to be the ultimate source of power for governments, the latter, at times, can be equally important. When the public perception of a governing body changes, society may begin to feel disassociated with the government. When one feels disconnected from the political landscape, feelings of desiring disobedience may arise — and naturally, the act of disobedience threatens the state of the government.
When Socrates arose with questions that induced an immense deal of thinking, the government feared that the public perception would change. A change in perspective of the citizens would then result in a possible loss of power. In other worlds, the Athenian elites felt threatened by the intellect of Socrates.
To the Athenian government, society was at risk of developing antigovernmental beliefs, especially with the chaotic wars the country had endured; thus, those of political power desired to kill the man at the forefront of the supposed anarchist movement: Socrates.
As some may say, “The Athenian government was right in prosecuting Socrates. When individuals ask philosophical questions that challenge the state of the government, it creates an unstable and non-patriotic society… clearly that is not good.”
To this logic I ask, what if you were a citizen of Nazi Germany? What if you were a citizen of Stalin’s USSR? What if you are a citizen of North Korea? What if you are a citizen of Eritrea? What if you are a citizen of Afghanistan? Individuals often fail to keep the same logic when it applies to a totalitarian state.
This argument may be challenged by saying, “Well in those states, the situation is much different. Athens was clearly a better place to live than Nazi Germany,” but again, the logic fails. In Nazi Germany, there were Nazis (advocates of the government) and non-Nazis (advocates of a different government). In Athens, Greece, there were those in support of the government and those not in support of the government. In both scenarios, there are two distinct factions of citizens. In times of pressure to not question, one must question.
As Bertrand Russel says in The History of Western Philosophy, “it was easier to silence him [Socrates] by means of the hemlock than to cure the evils of which he complained,” (84). The powerful quote by Russell reveals that Socrates simply attempted to reach the truth of the world, and Athens did not feel as though it was right.
While discussion of all the terrible things in the world may result in fear or confusion, it is the only way society makes progress:
- MLK’s speeches centered around the harsh reality of racism; however, without them, would people of color be able to do half of what they are able to do today?
- Talk of mental health reveals the unfortunate aspects of life; however, without them, would individuals have as much access to support systems as they do today?
- Discussion of the Waco Siege may lead to people feeling disassociated with the American government; however, without it, would government accountability be a topic of political debate?
Asking philosophical questions to reach truth is part of the human experience and is absolutely necessary to continue to progress as a society. When a government fears intellect, they will use any means possible to suppress it because truth is the most powerful tool against corruption, authority, and propaganda.
It is also worthy to keep in mind that, forgetting everything about government, the Athenian court was simply not just in prosecuting only Socrates. The court says, as written in Apology by Plato, that Socrates has to spend considerable time explaining how he does not, “make the worse argument the stronger,” and, “charge a fee,” for his lectures, two traits often used to describe the actions of the Sophists (18c and 19e). Why would Socrates, often referred to as the opposite of a Sophist, have to convince the courts that he is not a Sophist? If the Sophist ways are such a threat, then Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, and every other Sophist should be standing in court alongside Socrates.
With all that said, the answer is clear: the court had no basis for their argument other than feeling threatened by an intellectually-superior man. Socrates will continue to stand as a courageous man that wished for nothing more than a productive society free of corruption.
