The Apology of Plato presents Socrates' defense against the charges of the people of Athens. He defends his actions on the grounds that he only acted out of righteousness. His mission was righteous and he felt no shame in doing everything in his power to fulfill that mission even if it provoked or angered many. I wanted to focus on two curious elements of this dialogue: 1) At the end of his defense Socrates offers us an explanation of why he pursued "a course of life which [was] likely to bring [him] to an untimely death". Why did Socrates feel it was necessary to address this issue? 2) After the sentence was delivered Socrates speaks with those "who would have acquitted" him to reflect on what just happened and he tries to prove to them that death is good. Why did he address this issue?
To answers these questions we must first understand that the Apology is not just a transcript of Socrates' defense. Plato has a greater purpose in mind: the complete vindication of Socrates.
This vindication occurs on two levels. The first is the most basic: showing that everything Socrates did was righteous - this is accomplished in Socrates' response to his earlier accusers and to the group led by Meletus. The second vindication is as follows: one might question the wisdom of Socrates' life based on his end. Perhaps, one might think, it is not good to be a "gadfly", constantly "arousing and persuading and reproaching" - one only has to look at what happened: he was killed! Could an action which leads to one's death be good? The answer is most assuredly: yes! As Socrates says: "a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad." The Apology is not just a transcript of Socrates' defense - it is Plato's complete vindication of Socrates' life. Now, the answer to the first two questions is clear: Socrates' discussions of death are included in order to achieve the true purpose of the Apology.
2 comments:
According to Jewish Law, all commandments are suspended in order to save a life except for the commandments related to murder, illicit sexual relations, and idolatry. Even without going into the reasons for these exceptions, we clearly see one thing: Jewish law does not maintain that “a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad.” In other words, when faced with the choice of either upholding a commandment and facing death or violating the commandment and escaping death, Jewish law dictates the latter. (Moreover, according to Jewish law, a non-Jew is never required to give up his or her life in order to uphold a commandment, even murder, illicit sexual relations, and idolatry.)
My question is: what is the difference between the position of Socrates and the position of the Torah on the matter of giving up one’s life to uphold justice?
I have tried to give the beginning of an answer in today's post(s).
Post a Comment