One of the great disciples of Socrates, in Athens was Plato, he articulates the Athenian jury system and reveals the inadequacy of the arbitration. Whenever in ancient or modern period obedience of authority is a significant substance. While his defense Socrates says that “let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I make my defense” (Plato). The great philosopher Socrates, about twenty-four centuries ago recognized the truth that obedience is a major element to express his censure of the wrong jurisdiction and accusers. In his defense, Socrates stated his arguments to prove that he led the Athenian citizens on the way of wisdom, not atheism. Socrates teaches us that obedience is the recognition of the social system without it one can not succeed in his intention. He had the opportunity to save his life but Socrates enquired the answer to his questions. Accusers charged him as an atheist against Athenian gods at the same time; his questions were influential towards the youths. His words and opinions argued that authority continues old believes and those are orthodox.
Another important lesson given by Socrates is that wisdom is not living with philosophers it lies in the experience of human beings. Socrates recognizes that his teachings were an attempt towards an eternal truth so he presents wisdom before the jury and the citizens of Athens. Socrates tells that he speaks the words of paranormal power so he is not able to explain it. Plato reveals in his commentary as Socrates words that, “I am not angry with my accusers, or my condemners; they have done me no harm, although neither of them meant to do me any good; and for this, I may gently blame them” (Plato). He recognized as he is a wise man but inform the presence of the existing truth. The accusers charged Socrates as the teacher of atheism because according to them his words about the strange knowledge. Generally, the words of Socrates could not understand by his contemporary jurists because of his ironical explanations.
Socrates employs psychological approach to the success of his stand and proved it is the better element to criticize accusers. He never was a disobedient before the jury and be familiar with their authority. All the arguments of Socrates are blended with this obedience that discloses his intellectual status. Defense also exploited by the Socrates for the experiment, so that is considered as a different Milgram experiment before the authority. He often obediently addresses as ‘my judges’ for the jury members while his strong argument against the accusers. Thus Apology of Plato is presents a mock-up Milgram experiment through the words of his master. “The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance” (Cherry). This level of authority brings the obedience from the part of the accused but Socrates maintains respect towards anything he experienced. Socrates had the knowledge about the value of obedience, wisdom, and truth. For him good concepts are eternal things with no permanent danger. He really believed that his teachings and defense is the mission of the spirit or god. Moreover he wished to become a martyr in order to secure his ideals and believes. Accordingly, after found guilty Socrates had no feelings against accusers and jurists.
Socrates taught that a life that is governed by the rules and dictations of others, oblivious of the need for self-examination and evaluation is not worth living. He believed that a valuable life is one in which the individual strives for self-knowledge, wisdom, and a deeper understating of the self (Hoffpauir, 2020). A failure to question one’s actions and the way the world works results in irrational behaviors and the inability to distinguish good from bad (Hoffpauir, 2020). This view is controversial, with many philosophers providing opposing views. One group supports the argument that an unexamined life is worthless while the other criticizes and downplays the importance of superfluous examination of one’s life. Socrates’ argument is not successful because a life of rigorous examination is not fit for every individual, and mainly because happiness in life originates from a myriad of factors. Therefore, his argument is unreasonable, flawed, and wrong, even though it has a degree of truth to it. Factors such as good health, family, gratitude, and values such as kindness and generosity make life worth living, even though it is not examined. Socrates’ belief that the lack of constant examination and evaluation of one’s life makes it worthless has little merit because it downplays the importance of many other factors that are the ingredients of a happy and fulfilling life. An acceptance of Socrates’ view would change my life a bit because it would introduce a dimension that would involve evaluating personal choices, behaviors, attitudes, and thoughts to determine which are beneficial and which are detrimental. However, it would lead to a self-entanglement that would be difficult to abdicate because of the development of the habit of overthinking. Moreover, it would encourage obliviousness to other factors that give life value. Contemplation should be conducted frequently, and not as rigorous as Socrates recommends.
Reference
Hoffpauir, J. M. (2020). Between Socrates and the many: A study of Plato’s Crito. Lexington Books.
Socrates was accused of several crimes, and the first offense was that he did not practice the religion accepted by his city (Chroust, 14). The second offense was that Socrates preached an alternate history of a divine being (Chroust, 14). He argues that if one does not recognize some gods, but believes in others, then that individual cannot be considered an atheist because it is contrary to his atheistic nature (Chroust, 16). This is also the most convincing argument in Socrates’s speech, for atheism is total disbelief in any deity from the point of view of religion (Oppy, 2019). Socrates is a representative of another denomination but not an atheist (Oppy, 2019).
Socrates repeatedly mentions the Gods, whose existence he acknowledges (Chroust, 17, 73, 76, 98, 139, 112, 128). Then Socrates thought that men of genius were actual, but the ancient Greek opinion was that geniuses were the children of the gods (Chroust, 17). From this logical chain, Socrates comes to the contradiction in the charge that he who believes in the children of the Gods cannot believe in the Most Highs themselves (Chroust, 17). At the same time, those who deny the existence of any Supreme force are considered atheists, and, accordingly, the philosopher does not fit under this criterion (Oppy, 2019). Another accusation of Socrates was that of corrupting the young (Chroust, 16). The philosopher notes that it is not fair to accuse him of such behavior because every adult living in a city influences the minds of young people (Chroust, 16).
Consequently, every inhabitant corrupts the minds of young people (Chroust, 16). Socrates’ ideas about truth and the assertion that the wisest of all men know nothing consisted of the fact that searching for truth in any dialogue or study is a difficult path (Plato, 2020). Socrates regarded as an error a dialogue in which one side takes the “knowing” position. Socrates’ primary method was to encourage one that only an ignoramus is so stupid that he cannot even understand that he knows nothing (Plato, 2020). The philosopher concludes in his work that truth is an objective, immaterial and eternal entity that exists in the divine (Xenophon & Denyer, 2019).
Likewise, the philosopher admits that only an understanding of one’s ignorance is wisdom, which is the answer to the riddle of the oracle to which Socrates goes. During the trial, Socrates refers to the truth while talking about the corruption of youth, believing that the truth is that all citizens corrupt the younger generation but do not even realize it (Chroust, 76). Also, Socrates says that the trial itself is a discussion of abstract crimes, not a search for truth, since the accusers are engaged in things they do not know. (Chroust, 101).
References
Chroust, A. (2018). Socrates, man and muth. The two Socratic apologies of Xenophon. Taylor & Francis.
Plato. (2020). The essential Plato. Apology, Symposium and The republic. Open Road Media.
Oppy, G. (2019). A companion to atheism and philosophy. Wiley.
Xenophon, Denyer, N. (2019). Plato: The apology of Socrates and Xenophon: The apology of Socrates. Cambridge University Press.
Socrates believed that philosophy had a critical role in the lives of each individual. Philosophy was the driving factor behind how each person lived and their soul. One of his famous words was, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Burnet 153). The philosopher greatly argued for self-awareness and knowing oneself, and in the process of self-knowledge, discovering the true nature of who one is and one’s identity, “once we know ourselves, we may learn how to care for ourselves” (Burnet 158).
Socrates was known to question much of everything, especially the beliefs and principles of Athenian society at the time. He believed that one true self is the soul, not associated with social status, body, and riches. The soul, before Christianity, was seen as an inner being that defined each human being. Socrates believed that self-knowledge is recognizing the soul and learning to cultivate good in it while eliminating evil. In the end, happiness was the natural and desired end to life, and to achieve it, a person must attain the wisdom of what is good and what is evil and live their life accordingly “to care for one’s soul” (Burnet 146).
Eventually, the government of Athens was dissatisfied with Socrates’ teachings and growing following and put him on trial for asebeia against the pantheon of Athens and corruption of Athenian youth. Socrates presents his view of wisdom and the virtual as elements of moral truths, which defied the Athenian multi-god religion and social order, placing priests and judges at the top of the ladder. Socrates argued that he does in the will of the one god and to “either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times” (Burnet 224).
As for corrupting the youth, Socrates argued that many supposedly corrupted have reached maturity and were present at the trial, testifying that no such thing occurred, and they became loyal friends and supporters. Eventually, Socrates was found guilty and chose to drink poison surrounded by supporters than face the same public punishment.
Work Cited
Burnet, John (editor). Plato’s Euthphro, Apology of Socrates and Cryto. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1977.
In the formation and development of philosophy in ancient Greece, Socrates had a prominent place. The subject of his philosophical reasoning is human consciousness, the soul, and life in general, but not the cosmos and nature, as it was with his predecessors. Analyzing the issues of human existence, Socrates focused on ethics and legality in his speeches and talks; he taught the norms by which people should live in society.
Socrates raised numerous vital issues, and the dilemma of the essence of goodness and piety was one of the major ones. He questioned the formation of morality and its relation to the Gods (Wundt & Titchener, 2020). Subsequently, the question of the essence of laws and obedience to them was one of the most difficult in philosophical doctrine. In Crito, Socrates refuses to break the law when it threatens his imminent ruin. In Apologia, by contrast, he expresses a bold determination to disobey the will of the Athenians, whose power is to punish non-compliance to the law.
Socrates’ position seems contradictory only on the assumption that he considers the rules imposed by the Athenian legislator as the only regulation binding on him. However, the paradox disappears if one accepts that Socrates could regard the injunction to follow Athenian law as only one of the requirements of natural rules. He is convinced of the existence of a moral obligation to follow the law, rooted in the rational nature of the regulations of the City, which are founded on the rules of nature itself.
Philosopher thus fundamentally excludes the possibility of disobeying a law he considers natural and the most significant. The only question for him is which of the injunctions of natural law is more reasonable in a particular situation (Wundt & Titchener, 2020). Therefore, a man who believes that a rational soul constitutes his nature will not commit an act contrary to virtue to save his biological existence. If the City does not allow one to lead a life filled with the care of his soul, the logic should be different. No one has the right to violate the laws of nature because they are the most significant public good.
Reference
Wundt, W. M., & Titchener, E. B. (2020). Ethics: An investigation of the facts and laws of the moral life. Routledge.
It is significant to mention that Socrates was born around 469 BC in Athens. Socrates was educated by his father in the art of stone processing in his early years and was even considered a capable sculptor. However, the philosopher soon left his father’s workshop to study rhetoric and sophistic wisdom with the educated Athenian Crito. Socrates was an active figure in Athens; he was never charged money from students for education and lived in simple, ascetic conditions. He spent all his life in Athens and did not surrender to the temptation to travel as other philosophers did. However, during the Peloponnesian War, he went to war and defended his city. Socrates fought near Potidaea, Delia, and Amphipolis and protected the philosophers condemned to death, including the son of his friends Pericles and Aspasia, from unjust judgment. He mentored the Athenian politician and general Alcibiades and saved his life in battle (Taylor, 2019). After the establishment of the dictatorship by Alcibiades, Socrates condemned the tyrants and sabotaged the measures of authoritarianism.
When the dictatorship was deposed, enraged citizens charged Socrates with the fact that the Athenian army abandoned the wounded commander-in-chief. The philosopher was accused of “not honoring the gods the city honored but introducing new deities and being guilty of corrupting the youth (Taylor, 2019)”. As a free Athenian citizen, Socrates was not subjected to the death penalty but accepted poison himself. Information about the philosopher’s personal life is limited. It is essential to mention the personal life of the philosopher; according to Aristotle, Socrates married twice. At first, he married Xanthippe, who bore his son, and then he married Myrtos, the daughter of Aristides, who bore him two sons (Taylor, 2019)
Key Ideas
The Socratic dialogues were a search for proper knowledge, and an essential step on this path was the realization of its absence, the understanding of one’s unawareness. According to legend, Socrates was called by the Delphi Pythia “the wisest of all the wise. This is evidently connected with his statement about the limitations of human knowledge: “I know that I know nothing” (Taylor, 2019). In the method of irony, Socrates adopts the mask of a simpleton, asking him to teach something or give advice. There is always a goal behind this game, to force the interlocutor to discover himself and his ignorance, to achieve the effect of a beneficial shock to the listener.
Socrates addresses the problem of humans, the question of the essence of man, of his nature. Socrates claimed that studying the laws of nature and the movement of the stars is possible, but it is essential to arrive at the same deep truths of knowing human beings (Taylor, 2019). For Socrates, a person is, above all, his soul. By “soul,” Socrates means a person’s mind, the ability to think, and conscience, the moral beginning. If a person’s essence is his soul, then it is not his body that needs special care but rather his soul (Taylor, 2019). An educator’s highest task is teaching people how to cultivate their souls. The soul is perfect and virtuous when virtue makes it perfect. In Socrates, virtue relates to knowledge, which is a necessary condition for good actions.
Theories and Schools of Socrates
In his philosophy, Socrates reduced virtue to knowledge and optimistically believed that all could become moral if they knew what was good. All evil arises only from ignorance of the good; no one is evil by nature or voluntarily (Blum, 2018). These philosophical views of Socrates combined psychological determinism with the idea of the free, creative development of the spirit through acquiring and producing knowledge. It is also important to describe Socrates’ doctrine of God. In the time of Socrates, Greek philosophical thought had already destroyed the old belief in a humanistic Olympian god, and Socrates stood at the pivot of Greek thought to monotheism (Blum, 2018). He was the first to understand deity not as a natural but as a moral force. The identification of God with the idea of goodness and righteousness brought Socrates’ philosophy closer to monotheism and, in some respects, to Christianity.
Society and state are not simply the scene of struggles of individual or group egoisms. They are based on the idea of the whole, some divinely consecrated rational plan (Blum, 2018). In order to rule the state, one needs to understand this plan. It is important to describe the school of Cynics, which had its own postulates. The meaning of life they considered the achievement of virtue, by which they understood the reduction of needs and independence from society and the state (Blum, 2018). The adherents of the Cyrenaics school contrasted the asceticism of the Cynics with hedonism (enjoyment of life). In the Megarian school, the focus was on the problem of the singular and the general in knowledge in favor of the general (Blum, 2018).
The Importance of Socratic Philosophy
It is important to mention the glory of Socrates. Not long after his death, Socrates appeared as a distinguished thinker. The glory of the reformer of philosophy, who constituted an epoch in its development, has forever remained with Socrates. Thus, the whole previous period of its history is termed “pre-Socratic” (Blum, 2018). Aristotle honors Socrates for initiating a scientific methodology in the form of inductive reasoning and general definitions, while Cicero praises Socrates for being the creator of moral and social philosophy (Blum, 2018).
Reasons to Study Socratic Philosophy
Socrates understood the goal of his activity as making people “better,” that is, he wanted to make “better people” in an irrelevant sense, in contrast to the sophists, who understood “better” as people who were capable and adept in practical and political matters (Blum, 2018). Socrates attempted to restore the authority of knowledge that the sophists had destroyed. In questions of ethics, Socrates developed the principles of rationalism. His method of asking questions that presuppose a critical attitude to dogmatic assertions is entitled “Socratic irony (Blum, 2018)”. Dialectic is the art of arguing; in Socrates’ practice, dialectic became the primary method of finding the truth. Socratic irony is a critical attitude to dogmatic statements. In subsequent eras, Socrates became the embodiment of the sage ideal. Socrates introduced the concept of singularity and the general in cognition in favor of the general (Blum, 2018).
References
Blum, A. F. (2018). Socrates, the original and its images. Routledge.
Imitation of events from life in the form of various types of art is a natural activity for human beings. Poetry, as one of the most emotional types of art, is closely connected with the depiction of real events and people, emphasizing certain aspects depending on the purpose of creation. Aristotle, in his Poetics, argues that different types of poetry and some types of music have different concepts as their objects (Aristotle). The clearest contrast is between tragedy and comedy, which, although they use the same patterns of structure and plot, differ significantly in their aims. In particular, tragedy is about mythical characters who go through fear and pain, while comedic characters are about ordinary people whose problems are ridiculous. Socrates from the Golden Ass is a good example of an inferior person involved in comic actions since his story does not contain pathos, and his mischief does not bring pain and fear.
Aristotle, in his essay, defines poetry, its various types and also describes its components. The philosopher emphasizes that although such types of poetry as epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, and dithyrambic poetry are different “modes of imitation” (Aristotle). However, they differ depending on the medium, the object, and the mode, which constitutes their distinct features. The medium is associated with a type of art and uses language, rhythm, or melody together or separately for the imitation. The objects of imitation can be events, people, animals, things, or phenomena that are represented in poetry. The mode is a way of simulating an object, such as a narrative or an actor’s performance on a stage. Imitation is a natural activity for people, and viewers find pleasure in it, recognizing and understanding familiar images that can be found in the real world.
Objects can differ in moral characteristics, in particular, be good or bad. In other words, the object imitation can be attributed to either superior or inferior actions (Kitano 4). Aristotle explains that poetry must imitate objects either as they are, as they are perceived, or as they should be (Aristotle). According to the philosopher, “Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a higher or a lower type” (Aristotle). Whereas tragedy and epic poetry depict noble characters, comedy is about lower or inferior types. The comic character does not depict inferior types as not in the full sense of the word bad but as “ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly” (Aristotle). Thus, in contrast to tragedy, which reflects superior characters and actions, the object of comedy is ridiculous. Kitano explains that the objects of tragedy are mythical and heroic characters, while comedy contains the image of ordinary people (3). Whereas tragedy must contain the description of pity and fear, which makes it superior, the object of comedy is a mistake that is not destructive or painful.
Even though tragedy and comedy differ in terms of subject matter, they follow similar plot patterns that reveal a character’s path. At the same time, the plot of a tragedy develops due to a fearful and painful mistake, whereas in comedy, the mistake is made by the character himself and does not bring pain or fear (Kitano 5). Thus, tragedy and comedy focus on the error, which becomes the center of the plot development. However, the superior errors that the tragedy uses are serious and contain pathos. Inferior errors in the comedy, on the contrary, are “not serious and without pathos” (Kitano 5). Thus, the absence of pathos is a feature that determines the inferiority of the objects imitated in comedy. Additionally, both tragedy and comedy are based on a plot that contains a character’s mischief without its timely recognition; after that comes awareness, and the character either gets punishment or avoids it. In comedy, mischief is ridiculous and does not contain pathos, which makes it inferior (Kitano 5). A comedic mistake does not bring destruction and pain, not appealing to the serious and ethically related emotions of the viewer.
The Socrates represented in The Golden Ass is an example of the inferior actions that make up the comic plot. From the very beginning of the story of Socrates, the reader understands that the events described are of a comic nature. First of all, as noted, the main difference between comedy and tragedy is the de Socrates states, “It was only because I went in search of a bit of pleasure, to see a gladiatorial show I had heard a lot about, that I got into this dreadful mess” (Apuleius 4). These events do not refer to heroic and mythical circumstances but describe the ordinary events in which the character found himself.
As the story progresses, the reader realizes that Socrates’ pitiful position in which he was found was the result of his own error, which is a typical feature of comedy. In particular, Socrates explains that he was first robbed by bandits and then gave all his belongings to the owner of the inn with whom he shared a bed after unfortunate events (Apuleius 4). Aristomenes notes that the cause of Socrates’ misfortune is “preferring the pleasure of fornicating with a leathery old hag to your home and children” (Apuleius 4). Thus, the character is an example of inferior actions that come from the mistake of the person himself, which is the object of comedy. Socrates is subject to the vices of ordinary people, which ultimately leads him to ridiculous consequences that do not contain pain or fear.
Socrates tells Aristomenes the story that the woman he shared a bed with is an ugly witch who turns her ex-lovers into various animals. Although Aristomenes does not believe Socrates’ story, he becomes frightened and, at night, barricades the door to the room where they rested (Apuleius 4). At night, the witch comes to Socrates and Aristomenes; she drains the blood of Socrates and rips out his heart, replacing it with a sponge, after which she urinates on Aristomenes and leaves. Feeling a sense of fear that Aristomenes will be accused of killing Socrates, he tries to hang himself, but because of the rotten rope, he does not succeed. In the morning, Socrates awakens as if nothing had happened, and the friends continue on their way. However, on the way, Socrates and Aristomenes come across a spring from which Socrates drinks. The sponge put in the place of his heart falls out, and he dies.
Thus, the story of Socrates is an example of a comic plot that follows all the canons and depicts Socrates as a person performing inferior actions. As Kitano emphasizes, comedy should follow the traditional structure with a beginning, middle, and end that is presented in the story (4). In the end, the character either avoids punishment or receives it due to the late realization of what he did. Socrates, in this connection, committed mischief in relation to the witch, which characterizes him as an inferior person. His actions come from his own vices and give rise to a mistake, which becomes the cause of events. This element is the main one that distinguishes a comic plot from a tragic one.
Finally, the main condition that distinguishes comedy is the absence of pain and fear associated with the central problem caused by the inferior character’s mischief. Socrates, as a character, did not experience any unpleasant emotions associated with what happened at night. He is sure that replacing the heart with a sponge is just a dream that he dreamed (Apuleius 8). In the end, Socrates also suddenly dies without experiencing emotional and physical pain. This aspect is relevant to Aristomenes; although he had to flee the country, he escaped the potential punishment for Socrates’ death. Aristomenes notes that “And now I have remarried and live in Aetolia” (Apuleius 10). Thus, the mischief of Socrates is not associated with emotional upheavals and the transformation of heroes who overcome the trials of fate through pain and fear.
As an inferior person depicted in the comedy, Socrates makes a mistake because of his own vices and inclinations, which in the end does not bring pain and fear. In contrast to tragedy, where the character would have to confront a witch in order to save his life, the events associated with this character are comical. Although Aristomenes is nervous about what is happening, he easily survives this episode by burying Socrates and continuing on his way (Apuleius 10). This aspect is the main determinant of Socrates as inferior since his life, death, and the events that happen to him do not affect anything except his own life. As Pico della Mirandola suggested, the human being is free to create his own destiny and create himself, which Socrates did through his mischief (Mirandola). As an ordinary person, the depravity and licentiousness of a character define him as inferior, which does not contain pathos appealing to the audience.
Socrates does not experience pain and fear and does not overcome heroic obstacles. Instead, he falls into a trap due to his own mischief, the consequences of which he cannot avoid. Apuleius invites the viewer to take the character’s problems lightly, constantly appealing to comic events, such as Aristomenes’ unsuccessful attempt to hang himself (Apuleius 6). The acts of Socrates are so irrelevant that they are incapable of bringing death or suffering. As ordinary people do not affect the course of the world order or the lives of people around, so the inferior comic character finds himself in a limited situation relating exclusively to himself. Moreover, the story that happened to Socrates is so unrealistic that the viewer simply cannot relate to it, which eliminates the pathos completely. It is ridiculous in its essence, which brings to the fore precisely the moral ugly of Socrates as an inferior character. This ugliness is a comic foundation, which is the cause of the misfortune and death of the hero of the story.
Socrates of the Golden Ass is a classic example of a comic character, as he has traits of an inferior person. In particular, he makes a mistake, which becomes the cause of all the unfortunate events that happen to him. The mistake made is the result of Socrates’ depravity and licentiousness, which describes him as an ordinary person. Finally, he does not escape punishment for his mistake because he simply does not realize it. However, the events of this story do not bring pain and fear to anyone. They have no meaning to anyone but Socrates himself. These aspects make Socrates an excellent example of an inferior person involved in a classic comic act.
Works Cited
Apuleius. The Golden Ass or Metamorphoses. Penguin Books, 2004.
In Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro about what piety is and what actions can be considered pious, no conclusive definition is reached. Although Euthyphro offers several definitions of piety, Socrates refutes them, pointing out the logical fallacies within them. This paper examines and attempts to propose an answer to one of the questions posed by Socrates to Euthyphro: “What is that excellent aim that the gods achieve, using us as their servants?”
Discussion
In the dialogue, Euthyphro argues that people help Gods achieve an excellent aim by being pious. However, he fails to identify the principal excellent aim of the Gods that is achieved through their servants’ ministrations (“Plato’s Euthyphro, 11e-14c”). Euthyphro evades this question in their conversation and leaves Socrates’s query unsatisfied. The question presupposes that Gods work toward a specific goal that humans help them achieve. It can be argued that the ultimate intention of the Gods’ work to which people actively contribute is the betterment of men’s souls. Therefore, any human action aimed at self-improvement of improvement and enlightenment of others can be considered pious as it serves the excellent aim of bettering the souls of humans. Thus, being good to the Gods lies in helping them achieve the chief goal. Socrates can use this answer in court to defend himself against the accusation of corrupting youth. As maintaining a false belief can be viewed as highly damaging to the human soul, Socrates’ attempts to show the youth the truth he believes in can be considered a pious action.
Conclusion
In summary, the most sensible answer to Socrates’ question is that the aim that the gods achieve using people as servants is the improvement of the human souls. Therefore, pious actions can be viewed as pious because they serve this utmost divine purpose. Furthermore, any action that seeks to enlighten people and better their understanding of the divine should be viewed as pious, allowing Socrates to use this reasoning for his defense.
Death is inevitable; nevertheless, very few people, if any, would claim not to fear this eventuality that each living soul must go through. Even if one wanted to die, the driving force would not be the sweetness of death; no, there has to be another compelling issue like protection of one’s beliefs or having lost the thrill of life among other pertinent issues. Socrates learned this fact the hard way and even though he says that, “death could be a dreamless sleep. We would not be anywhere anymore. We would not be conscious of anything” (Plato Para. 42), and still concur that he would not mind it, I still have one question, would I want to be annihilated even if this observation were true?
From Socrates’ accounts as recorded by Plato in Socrates Apology, there emerge suggestive instances that point out perhaps, Socrates was afraid of death more than what modern literature might want to suggest. There are apposite issues that Socrates raised during his defense that would force to me conclude, I would not want to be annihilated at whatever cost. First, if death was as sweet as Socrates insinuates in his opinion, why did he take so long to defend cum bargain for his life before the Athenian jury? He only ‘hoped’ to succeed in his defense implying that he ‘hoped’ or rather wanted to live more than to die. If death were ‘a single night’ as Socrates suggests, he would have told his accusers to send him right away to this dreamless night that sounds better than living. Socrates was only out to defend his philosophical views, not that he preferred death to life. For instance, he says, “If I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death…” (Plato Para. 56). In other words, Socrates is saying, if it were not for the oracle that supposedly confirmed him as the wisest man on earth, he would choose life for then, he would not be against anything ‘divine’. On other accounts, Socrates indicated strongly that he would rather die than compromise what he believed. Nevertheless, the question of whether he knew for sure death was as a dreamless slumber arises.
Without any degree of certainty, Socrates divulges, “…no one knows whether death…may not be the greatest good” (Plato Para. 62). This uncertainty shows how the man who appears to be rooting for death on the outside, on the inside, the exact opposite is dominated. The fact that Socrates did not know for sure the ultimate good of death sends chills down my spine for through my meditation I have concluded that life is better than death. Seeking the wisdom of the wise concerning the same, I stumbled upon Hezekiah, a man who was used by God in a great way; yet he feared death that he bargained for more years, which saw his lifespan extended by fifteen years (New International Version, Isa. 38. 5). This example typifies Socrates bargaining for his life to an extent of wishing he had money to purchase his freedom. He says, “Had I money I might have proposed to give you what I had” (Plato Para. 96). Unfortunately, he could only raise thirty minae, a scrimpy amount to secure his freedom. Remember, if he had more he would have given all that he had: reason, to live more days. At one point, he even advises the jury to spare his life. These utterances are not from a soul convinced that death is better than life, if not so, he would have bargained for the better course, which in this case is death. These observations leave me reeling at the mention of the revolting word, annihilation. Even Solomon, the sage of the old concurs that “…a live dog is better off than a dead lion” (Eccl. 9. 4). Consequently, I had better live than die; I would be of use in the land of the living than spending a lifetime sleeping in a single night that is death. Alternatively, perhaps Socrates was tired of life.
Critics and adherents alike, at some point, suspect that Socrates feared senility and tired of life altogether. Waterfield concludes that “…Socrates felt that old age would be unpleasant anyway” (204). This might be true given the way Socrates arrogantly responded to his accusers. He repeatedly insisted that he was “over seventy” years and this raises eyebrows as to what he adumbrated by that. Waterfield continues to speculate that Socrates, “saw himself as healing the city’s ills by his voluntary death” (205). For these reasons, Socrates did not choose death over life because of the ‘goodness of life after death, but to defend what he held. Whatever the case, annihilation is non-existent in areas of my concern. Despite his remarks that seem to embolden his perspective towards death, in the cases analyzed above, Socrates appears to fear death. Death might be better than life depending on one’s ideologies; nevertheless, to me, life is better than death and I would not consider annihilation at whatever cost. If only Socrates would come back to life, he would be better placed to give an opinion about life and death today, than he was then.
Works Cited
Plato. Apology. Translated by Jowett, Benjamin. N.d. Web.
The New International Version Bible. England: Clays Ltd, 1984.
Waterfield, Robin. Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths. New York: W.W. Norton And Company, 2009.
Art is an essential part of people’s life. Art makes people relax. Viewing the masterpieces of art, some feelings of beauty are awoken inside people. Beauty is a great stimulator to people’s feelings and mind. It gives some food for thinking about different aspects of people’s life. Art entertains people, it gives them an opportunity to forget about every day life and immerse into another world, the world of beauty and masterpieces.
We are going to analyze two masterpieces of art in our term paper: sculpture “Struggle of the Two Natures in Man” (1888) by George Grey Barnard (Barnard) and painting “The Death of Socrates” (1787) by Jacques-Louis David (David). These two works of art are created in the difference of one hundred years.
George Grey Barnard is an American sculptor. He is original, independent and controversial figure, who was born in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. He lived not much, 75 years (1863 – 1938), but created a number of great masterpieces. George Grey Barnard was famous in America but often not recognized in other countries (Chilvers 2000-50). His “Struggle of the Two Natures in Man” is a great work. He spent much time creating it, and while he created he was “a law unto himself, going his own way” (Epstein 2008).
Jacques-Louis David was born in August 30, 1748 in Paris. He took active part in the political life of French society; Napoleon Bonaparte appreciated him and his paintings. Jacques-Louis David traveled a lot, died on December 29, 1825 in Brussels, at the age of 77. Two oh his works were taken to America when he was alive. (Bordes 2007)
The sculpture “Struggle of the Two Natures in Man” was created in 1888 by George Grey Barnard. The work of art presents us the stoned man, and he doubles into two different men. The bodies are naked and there is a feeling that one man is “coming out” of the other. One man is lying on the floor, and the other one is standing. The nude men figures show the perfect pumped up bodies. The sculpture gives an impression of movement.
The painting “The Death of Socrates” by Jacques-Louis David was created in 1787. The painting shows us something like a stoned sell, a person (Socrates, as we see from the title), who is sentenced to death, is sitting on the bed and people are crying near him.
The sentenced man is discussing something; we may think, taking into consideration his gestures, that he tries to prove something to the near sitting man. The other man is sitting near the bed: he is either sleeping or praying. The corridor and the other room are opened to the viewers. People are rising on steps and by gestures say “good bye” to those who are left at the room with the sentenced to death person. The size of the painting is 51″ x 77 1/4″, the painting is created by oil on Canvas.
“Struggle of the Two Natures in Man” is a stoned sculpture with smooth lines. The sculptor managed to create, managed to show every line of human body. The impression is that the sculpture will sand up and so, so realistic the men are. The sculptor did not emphasize any parts of the figures by color. The sculptures are the unity of bodies and at the same time its variety. The bodies are one and the same soul which unites them. The different natures of these bodies are the variety the work depicts us.
The creator of the work of art do not focus our attention on any part, giving us the right to choose the most prominent and important sides of the sculpture. The standing man is like “growing” out of the lying one and in the place of their combination we see a kind of some small animal, like a cat or a dog with teeth.
“The Death of Socrates” is a colored picture. The artist gives the impression, the illusion of space with the help of shade. The lines are smooth, full. The artist gives lots of details which give the viewers the opportunity to understand that it is a sell: stone walls, metal handcuffs, lots of different metal details, the grates, the stares which take on the top give us the understanding that the room is situated under the ground.
Manuscripts are lying on the floor, what confirms that there is not just common person in the prison, that it is an educated person with the ability to think. The manuscripts may also symbolize the reason why the person was sentenced to death: because of his lessons and works which created some inconvenience to the government.
The grey color of the walls is in a great contrast with the white color of dress of the prisoner and bright colors (yellow, blue, red) of the dresses of his friends. The corridor, which leads us into the other room, gives us an impression that the space is much bigger than we see.
The sculptor of “Struggle of the Two Natures in Man” wanted to show the viewer his vision of people’s inner world; he wanted to show us the struggle which appears in the life of every person when he or she has to decide something, has to choose one item from the offered ones, his nature is doubled. The absolutely equal bodies of the work of art symbolize the equality of opportunities to win in this struggle.
Every person has at least two different natures in his mind and soul, and every day these souls are in struggle, every wants to be the winner. The sculpture is very dynamic; the vision is that the men are going to move every minute. So, the movement inside us is constant: if it seems that one nature has won and is standing, the other is ready to attack, and the struggle continues.
The artist of “The Death of Socrates” presents the viewer the last moment of the life of Socrates. Socrates is sentenced to the death by the Athenian government for his work. His teaching methods did not suit that government. He tried to arouse, to wake up scepticism and impiety, disobedience and critical views in the minds of his students.
Socrates heroically rejected exile, he submitted to his destiny, he accepted the death from hemlock. Even when the death is so close, Socrates did not stop to teach his students. We may see all that from his gestures, from his mimics. The artist portrayed the faces of people with such details that the viewer can easily guess what they were thinking about, what they were feeling.
We see some people who were in grief, who cried about the Socrates death and did not even try to hide their tears. The others vice versa managed to maintain the self control and try to support conversation with Socrates. On the painting we see Socrates’ wife who is leaving the sell. She cannot stand those emotions and she decided to leave, not to be racked by soul tortures.
My feelings about the sculpture “Struggle of the Two Natures in Man” (1888) by George Grey Barnard awoke in me rather positive feelings. It is rather impressive to see the inner struggle of people outside.
The work of art is made according to the principle of imitationalism. The artist tried to imitate the struggle which can be seen, in indirect understanding of this word, inside every person. The artist’s aim was to show us the process of constant, dynamic change of the winner, and to underline the unstop process inside us.
The concept of emotionalism is also appropriate here. When you see this sculpture for the first time you are very impressed by it. You begin to think over different aspects of life, you think over the philosophical sides. The sculpture awakes the thoughts which never came to your mind.
The impression from the painting “The Death of Socrates” by Jacques-Louis David is rather contrasting. From one side I sympathize the grief of Socrates friends and family, I grieve for him and ready to burst into tears when look on this painting. And from the other side, when I look on Socrates’ insured face, I understand that he submitted and the artist wanted to tell that the other people should also submit. He understands that it is his destiny, and now he should try to use his last hours with the biggest benefit. And his mood is given to the viewer, and you do not to grieve any more.
The narrative basis of the work gives the impression of the concept of formalism used in the judgment. The formal elements and design principles, which are used in the sell portrayal, are used carefully and innovative, what creates a great effect from the painting and make it successful. The emotional side of the painting depends on person’s perception. The question is what the person is going to take for the primary judgment. This work “breaks away from the usual canons of composition” (Caffin 2008).
In general, both these works of art create some light feelings in my heart. The George Grey Barnard’ sculpture makes me think about the future, about the inner world of every person in particular. The work by Jacques-Louis David gives me some food to think about the past, death in general and its purpose, whether people should grief about the future death or try to do as much as possible, to give people the experience they have till they alive.
Both these works of art provoke the philosophical thinking in the people’s mind. And it is the main common feature of these works of art which seem from the first side to be absolutely different and in the form of display, and in the method of portrayal.
The main differences are that the George Grey Barnard’ sculpture shows the inner world of people, their inner feelings, and the Jacques-Louis David’s painting presents the outer display of inner feelings.
Works Cited
Barnard, George Grey. “Struggle of the Two Natures in Man”. 2009. Web.
Bordes, Philippe. David, Jacques Louis. Jacques-Louis David: Empire to Exile. Yale University Press, 2007
Caffin, Charles H. American Masters of Sculpture. READ BOOKS, 2008
Chilvers, Ian. A Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
David, Jacques-Louis. “The Death of Socrates”. 2009. Web.
Epstein, Jacob. Let There Be Sculpture. READ BOOKS, 2008.