Monday, September 15, 2008
Greek Politics and the Philosopher
Having gotten a sense from Thucydides of how eloquent political speechifying could be in Athens, as well as how incredibly volatile the participatory political system was, we can get some sense of why Socrates steered clear of the Assembly and the law courts (and also why he was not necessarily a fan of the old democracy -- though it certainly doesn't follow that he was a supporter of the thirty tyrants!). Nonetheless, in Crito we see him as a devoted citizen of Athens, prepared to uphold its laws (nomoi in Greek -- we'll discuss the difference) to the death even when they make a mistake. This is an apotheosis of patriotism, but with some interesting twists -- Socrates is never uncritical, even of the gods themselve, much less the mortal laws of his city.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There were two public groups prevalent in Socrates' Athens: the sophists (who developed rhetoric to the level of an art, but for the sole purpose of winning a debate, rather than seeking and revealing a truth), and the cosmologists (who speculated on ethereal questions about nature and the heavens without providing any reliable basis for their conclusions). To Socrates, listening to either of these "sources of knowledge" must have been as painful for him as it is for me to listen to George W. Bush (it is analogous to scratching nails on an intellectual blackboard).
Within the context of his time and culture, I do not see that he could or would have made any other choice than to "stir up the pot." But he didn't go at them (the sophists and the cosmologists) with a frontal attack. That would have ended his life much too soon. Instead, his attack was subtle but persistent, as he systematically exposed the ignorance of Athenians who claimed to be wise (indeed, who got paid for being "wise"). Like a bee annoying a dragon, this approach bought him time -- time in which he could reach the minds of a few promising Athenians (for I do not think he would have thought of them as "students"). Plato was not the least among them.
Having planted the seeds of his thought, and (I think there is some probability in making the following assumption) exhausted as he must have felt having survived the seige and The Thirty, he made his final argument against the "ignorance" of the scientific and political scene in Athens by allowing them to execute him. He all but assured his death sentence in his answer to the court following his verdict of "guilty," when he told them the "punishment" he should receive was to to be given free meals at the Prytaneum. Following that bit of irony, 80 jurors who had voted him innocent, voted for his execution! (see Pojman, "Who Are We" Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).
It is difficult to assume naivete on Socrates' part in taking that position. It was a slap in the face of the Athenian court, and there was nothing subtle about it. I think he decided when to end it, and they never realized what he was doing.
For a more ethereal POV on the same subject, see "SOME ETHEREAL SPECULATION ON SOCRATES" on my blog at http://shadowonthemoon.blogspot.com/. My blog identity is Mariah Wolfe, which is the name under which I attempt to do some serious writing [grin] The blog name is "MoonShadow" (I'm 68 years young next month and I never dreamed I'd use microwaves or be a blogger -- I've been proven wrong on both counts).
Socrates illustrates a very healthy form of patriotism. There is an apparent American form of patriotism that differs from Socrates's form of patriotism. It seems as if some American's are knowingly or unknowingly uncritical of their support for their nation's war efforts. American's support for their nation should be critical because an ideal democracy would include conscious input from all citizens.
In this essay, Robert Jenson criticizes patriotism and gives two definitions of patriotism, “Patriotism as loyalty to the war effort “ and “Patriotism as critique of the war effort.” I believe that these two definitions illustrate the difference between Socrates's form of patriotism and some apparent forms of American patriotism. Jenson goes on and argues that the patriotic mentality should be forgotten, which I very partially agree with. I believe that Socrates sets a good example of what patriotism could be. I struggle to say it is ideal because I am uneasy about Socrates's patriotic actions that put his life at serious danger. Socrates clearly values the well being of his nation over the well being of himself, which is a decision I have not yet decided.
“I mean the statement to be harsh because I believe the question is crucial. If in the end we are just Americans, if we cannot move beyond patriotism, then we cannot claim to be internationalists. And, if we are not truly internationalist in our outlook -- all the way to the bone -- then I do not think we truly call ourselves people committed to peace and justice. “ (from Jensen, “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism”)
Kyle,
Wow! That’s some article! I’m wondering when we moved from a cultural identity of being “just Americans” to one of being “internationalists,” and when did being internationalist become the prerequisite for a “people committed to peace and justice.” I’m not entirely comfortable with these arguments.
On December 7, 1941, our national identity galvanized around the attack on Pearl Harbor; in the 1960’s it wrapped itself around the ideals of young but intelligent and outspoken college students who justly criticized an unjust war; in 2001 we were galvanized again by the attacks on New York and Washington DC. I see a significant difference about the resistance of the 1960’s and a parallel in the galvanized patriotism seen in the 1940’s and the present. In the 60’s there was no apparent attack on US soil. The injustice of the Vietnam War was not camouflaged by fear. I think that will make all the difference on the attitude of the masses – and I think government is well aware of that fact.
I don’t think national identity is a bad thing, per se. To be an Athenian meant something important to Athenians, something for which they could be proud, until their downfall and eventual demise. I think Americans are facing a similar process. Being an American used to mean something for which Americans could be proud (not boastful, but satisfied in self-worth); I do not feel that is necessarily true today, and I think our lack of national self-worth will have to resolve itself one way or the other.
There is no question that the globe is getting smaller, and perhaps, as a species, we really are moving toward an internationalist identity. But before that can happen culturally, I think there will have to be another culture against which our own “world culture” can compare itself – in other words, we’ll have to accomplish peaceful alien contact. That realization is, in my opinion, still millennia away. Meanwhile, the only internationalists I’m aware of are the corporations who are seeking a positive impact on their bottom lines, and that group of homo sapiens may or may not have world peace high on their lists of priorities.
When it comes to laying down your life for a personally held principal, the last time that happened in this country was during our Civil War, and we are still recovering from those self-inflicted wounds. In class the other day I tried to imagine if there were a principle, some intellectual ideal, for which I would be willing to give up my life. In retrospect, I think there probably is one out there somewhere, I just have not yet been pushed up against it to test my mettle. I do know this: no matter how much you may think about it, you cannot “know” how you will respond to any given crisis situation.
I think Socrates really saw Athens in crisis. His choices were intensely personal, and I think he meant them to be exemplary. In the Phaedo, he goes to some extent to explain why a philosopher would not be afraid of facing the process we call “death.” Given his culture, the historical realities of his time, and the level to which he had raised his own awareness regarding the truths he pursued, I now think the manner of his demise makes sense. Would I follow in his footsteps? Only a true crisis can tell the tale.
Thanks for your provocative comments and the link to Jensen's article.
Post a Comment