Socrates
DAWN The Review, May 25-31,
2000. Karachi, Pakistan
Every society carries two evils in
its wake. The first is a desire for conformity. The second, arising
out of it, is a vengeance against anyone who stands out as different.
This is true of any society, irrespective of its form of government.
Be it a monarchy or a dictatorship, people conform to the whim
of the ruler, whatever it may be. In a democracy, individuals
tend to conform to their own lowest common denominator.
Athens, 399 B.C.:
Socrates opens his argument before the jury of 501 fellow citizens
of the ancient republic: "How you felt, gentlemen of Athens,
when you heard my accusers, I do not know; but I - well, I nearly
forgot who I was, they were so persuasive!"
The chronicler does not tell us how the honest citizens responded,
but they might have burst out in an uproar of disapproval as the
old man began to indulge in his proverbial irreverent manner of
speeches. Well, this one was going to be his last.
"There are two sets of my accusers," he observed. "Some,
who have been accusing me for a very long time and you who have
been brought up on their words. I do not hope to dispel in such
a short time the prejudice they have implanted in the minds of
the generations. ..." So much for the farce of justice and
fair deal. For a court can be fair when deciding a property claim.
But, how could humans have the arrogance to believe that they
have the ability, let alone the right, of judging another person's
thoughts and ideas. "And there are some new accusers, who
represent the stakes of the politicians, poets and craftsmen."
All were bent against him. "My first accusers have brought
out the long standing accusation against me: Socrates is a criminal
and a busybody, prying into things under the earth and up in the
heavens, and making the weaker argument stronger, and teaching
these same things to others. ..."
The intention of the accusers was just the opposite of how they
worded their thoughts. The Athenians wouldn't have resented him
so much if he had claimed to know more than others. They were
angry at him because he claimed to know nothing. In a society,
where logic was used to defend prejudice, and philosophy was no
more than a set of conventions, Socrates had simply demanded that
truth be given a chance to stand on its own feet, and that was
a very unreasonable demand. Nobody had made such a demand since
the birth of civilization. The best way to determine whether it
was day or night was to ask the king, if it were a monarchy. Or
cast a poll, if it were a democracy. To peer out of your window,
and actually look at the sky was indeed a criminal activity, and
could fit the charge of "prying into things under the earth
and up on the heavens." The argument that did not have the
power of a tyrant or the tyranny of a majority on its side was
obviously 'weaker.' To prove that it was 'stronger' by pure common
sense was evil in the eyes of Greek society, just as it has remained
evil to most societies since then.
The new accusers had a different charge. "Socrates is a criminal,
who corrupts the young and does not believe in gods whom the state
believes in, but other new spiritual things instead." This
was an interesting one. When Socrates cross-examined his main
accuser, he said that in his opinion Socrates didn't believe in
any god at all. "Then, how can you accuse me of inventing
new gods?" The accuser had no answer. He didn't need one,
in any case. He was not standing on the power of his logic, but
on the trust he had in the herd's eagerness to preserve their
old order.
"So far from pleading for my own sake," Socrates said,
as one might expect, "I plead for your sakes, that you may
not offend about God's gift by condemning me. If you put me to
death, you will not easily find another, really like something
stuck on the state by the god, though it is rather laughable to
say so. The state is like a big thoroughbred horse, so big that
he is a bit slow and heavy, and wants a gadfly to wake him up.
I think God put me on you something like that, to wake you up...!"
Some modern critics have argued that Socrates presented a weak
defense when he tried to use the same words that had brought him
to the trial in the first place. They argue that he should have
pleaded to the spirit of democracy that Athens was so proud to
represent. He should have asked for his right to say whatever
he willed, just as his enemies had a right to say whatever so
they desired. Socrates must have considered this option, because
he preempted such apologists many centuries in advance: "You
are wrong, my friend, if you think that a man with a spark of
decency in him ought to calculate life or death. The only thing
he ought to consider, if he does anything, is whether he does
right or wrong, whether it is what a good man does or a bad man."
He knew what it would imply if he said anything other than what
he had been saying all his life. The most obvious implication
would have been a denial of everything he had always stood for.
He had claimed that nothing could be true, no matter how many
people believe in it, unless it is proven true by logic. He was
no altruist, and this was not a case for the freedom of speech,
but a case for the freedom of thought. Both differ. People don't
mind what you speak as long as you think like the rest of them.
"If you hear me using the words to defend myself that I have
been using in the market place, please do not make an uproar on
that count." This was his last bow, and he had every reason
to stand by any word he had ever said anywhere. When he ended
his argument, he had stamped his entire life with an immortal
seal. "And I know very well that these same things make me
disliked. Which is another proof that I am speaking the truth...
Whether you examine this now or afterwards, you will find it the
same!"
Out of the 501 Athenians at the trial of Socrates, 281 voted against
him. It is an amusing idea to question whether they passed a judgment
on Socrates or on themselves. Or whether it was Socrates who passed
a judgment on them for all times to come.
