4 ms·

Do you know how Socrates died? He was put to death for asking hypothetical religious/political/philosophical questions of his students leading to charges of cor

Do you know how Socrates died? He was put to death for asking hypothetical religious/political/philosophical questions of his students leading to charges of corruption and impiety. On the other hand, true to his philosophy to the end, he had every possibility to escape the city after being convicted and sentenced to death. He instead accepted the judgement of the law and ended his own life with a drink of hemlock. And it's easy to look back at that and imagine how much we have progressed, yet at the same time we still have as much a fear of words as ever. And I imagine there's hardly a person that would respect our system of law so much as to be voluntarily willing to sacrifice their lives as a matter of principle in obedience to such, even when he certainly felt he was being grievously wronged.

watwut 8y ago
During wars and revolutions and such, people did sacrificed themselves. People did sacrificed themselves when talking against communism and nazism. People today in critical situations still do that. Hell, Snowden sacrificed a lot and so did other wistleblowers. Not life, but definitely a lot.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  It has very little to do with sacrifice in and of itself. Socrates could have escaped punishment and left Greece very easily had he wanted. And he certainly felt he was in the right and the law was in the wrong which could create a relative justification for doing so. Yet he chose to accept his punishment. There's immense discussion about the reasons for this, but there's no doubt that a major part of it is that he felt the 'social contract' that held society together was sacred. And so he did what he could to improve that society even when it may have run afoul of that society's laws, but also did not aim to avoid its judgement and justice when it came to that, however unjust he might have felt them. Snowden did the exact opposite in seeking to achieve his ends yet also avoid justice at even extreme costs to himself. It's a mindset that we can even hardly imagine in times today, which is precisely what Socrates feared society would turn into.
  - watwut 8y ago
    It was outlier back then too. Outliers like that exist still, but they are less prominent (And happened in both Germany and Communists countries, I have run across self sacrifices like that. Russian admiral who refused to leave out of sense of duty and got tortured, blinded and killed. Last tzar refused to leave for similar reason. Less prominent German people who dissented and knew what will happen to them and knew they achieve nothing.) But also, it is less frequent because that mindset achieves nothing. It is interesting personal story as you cross it in history book, but they are drops nobody takes lesson from and nobody cares about. Just about only ones that was close to achieving something were those who made popular martyrs from themselves. From top of head, there was that Polish man who turned himself into concentration camp so that he can escape and be witness. (Was not much believed.)
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      It could be said that that mindset alone accomplishes nothing but in mass it creates the foundation for a just society. And even when the society itself may lack it, when its leaders follow such a code it can at least be justly governed. But as democracy has become the norm, so as has the election of individuals whose personal code is dubious at best. And that in turn results in the formation of rules and laws that reflect such a lack of values. I suppose I mostly just long for a time when political leaders were those deeply schooled participants in political and logical philosophy. Now a days instead of writings on political theory and ideology, the most we can expect from our political leaders is ghost written "autobiographies" that seem to be little more than self indulgent money grabs.
      - watwut 8y ago
        Socrates was not leader at that moment, he was killed. The regime at time was authoritarian and its leaders killed a lot of other people too. None of those other deaths created just society - the violent and corrupted people stayed in power till they were topped by other violence. (Or in case of communism regime remained violent till it died dozens years after for different reasons). I don't know when deeply thinking political and logical philosiphers were supposed to rule. I also don't think it would necessary imply just or fair society. It might end like cruel but effective society too with strong entrenched power structure.
Nasrudith 8y ago
To be perfectly frank we don't for a reason. Given how definitive the early 20th century was in what not to do and the dangers of obedience. If people just followed orders as told we would have had a nuclear war in which the best case was the collapse of the US and USSR. there are few left who would fit in the categories. Societal metacognition is a necessity - to stand by its wrongs is the surest way to destroy it.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  This has nothing to do with blind obedience whatsoever, which goes entirely against the point. Socrates knew his teachings could run afoul of the law. And in fact it already had put him in contention with this in power, which many believe was an underpinning of his prosecution. In particular Socrates was a strong and vocal critic of democracy, which is the direction that 'the powers that be' were taking Greece. He feared that masses of people, of no meaningful qualification, were unlikely to be able to be able to vote to effective ends. He similarly feared the election of demogogues, which even at the time democracy had started to show trends towards. And he was stating all of this at the height, and eventual decline, of Athenian democracy. Said democracy was in fact overthrown multiple times during Socrates' life in movements headed by former pupils of his! At one point Socrates was ordered to arrest one of his pupils. An order which he refused though at the same time making no effort to avoid its execution such as, for instance, by informing his pupil of it. See the nuance? Perhaps most ironic is that his final fate was decided by a vote of 500 Athenians of no particular qualification. And he was put to death by a 52% to 48% margin. The point is difference between deference to law and deference to justice. Socrates would not obey the law without consideration, but he would also not seek to avoid repercussion for his actions.

watwut 8y ago

During wars and revolutions and such, people did sacrificed themselves. People did sacrificed themselves when talking against communism and nazism. People today in critical situations still do that. Hell, Snowden sacrificed a lot and so did other wistleblowers. Not life, but definitely a lot.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
It has very little to do with sacrifice in and of itself. Socrates could have escaped punishment and left Greece very easily had he wanted. And he certainly felt he was in the right and the law was in the wrong which could create a relative justification for doing so. Yet he chose to accept his punishment. There's immense discussion about the reasons for this, but there's no doubt that a major part of it is that he felt the 'social contract' that held society together was sacred. And so he did what he could to improve that society even when it may have run afoul of that society's laws, but also did not aim to avoid its judgement and justice when it came to that, however unjust he might have felt them. Snowden did the exact opposite in seeking to achieve his ends yet also avoid justice at even extreme costs to himself. It's a mindset that we can even hardly imagine in times today, which is precisely what Socrates feared society would turn into.
- watwut 8y ago
  It was outlier back then too. Outliers like that exist still, but they are less prominent (And happened in both Germany and Communists countries, I have run across self sacrifices like that. Russian admiral who refused to leave out of sense of duty and got tortured, blinded and killed. Last tzar refused to leave for similar reason. Less prominent German people who dissented and knew what will happen to them and knew they achieve nothing.) But also, it is less frequent because that mindset achieves nothing. It is interesting personal story as you cross it in history book, but they are drops nobody takes lesson from and nobody cares about. Just about only ones that was close to achieving something were those who made popular martyrs from themselves. From top of head, there was that Polish man who turned himself into concentration camp so that he can escape and be witness. (Was not much believed.)
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    It could be said that that mindset alone accomplishes nothing but in mass it creates the foundation for a just society. And even when the society itself may lack it, when its leaders follow such a code it can at least be justly governed. But as democracy has become the norm, so as has the election of individuals whose personal code is dubious at best. And that in turn results in the formation of rules and laws that reflect such a lack of values. I suppose I mostly just long for a time when political leaders were those deeply schooled participants in political and logical philosophy. Now a days instead of writings on political theory and ideology, the most we can expect from our political leaders is ghost written "autobiographies" that seem to be little more than self indulgent money grabs.
    - watwut 8y ago
      Socrates was not leader at that moment, he was killed. The regime at time was authoritarian and its leaders killed a lot of other people too. None of those other deaths created just society - the violent and corrupted people stayed in power till they were topped by other violence. (Or in case of communism regime remained violent till it died dozens years after for different reasons). I don't know when deeply thinking political and logical philosiphers were supposed to rule. I also don't think it would necessary imply just or fair society. It might end like cruel but effective society too with strong entrenched power structure.

Nasrudith 8y ago

To be perfectly frank we don't for a reason. Given how definitive the early 20th century was in what not to do and the dangers of obedience. If people just followed orders as told we would have had a nuclear war in which the best case was the collapse of the US and USSR. there are few left who would fit in the categories. Societal metacognition is a necessity - to stand by its wrongs is the surest way to destroy it.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
This has nothing to do with blind obedience whatsoever, which goes entirely against the point. Socrates knew his teachings could run afoul of the law. And in fact it already had put him in contention with this in power, which many believe was an underpinning of his prosecution. In particular Socrates was a strong and vocal critic of democracy, which is the direction that 'the powers that be' were taking Greece. He feared that masses of people, of no meaningful qualification, were unlikely to be able to be able to vote to effective ends. He similarly feared the election of demogogues, which even at the time democracy had started to show trends towards. And he was stating all of this at the height, and eventual decline, of Athenian democracy. Said democracy was in fact overthrown multiple times during Socrates' life in movements headed by former pupils of his! At one point Socrates was ordered to arrest one of his pupils. An order which he refused though at the same time making no effort to avoid its execution such as, for instance, by informing his pupil of it. See the nuance? Perhaps most ironic is that his final fate was decided by a vote of 500 Athenians of no particular qualification. And he was put to death by a 52% to 48% margin. The point is difference between deference to law and deference to justice. Socrates would not obey the law without consideration, but he would also not seek to avoid repercussion for his actions.