5 ms·

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 fel

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.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      Socrates lived in Athens during Athenian democracy, which was a true and literal democracy, and was executed by democratic vote of 500 Athenian citizen jurors - 52% to 48%, perhaps a validation of Socrates' criticisms of democracy! Aside from that, many individuals at a high level of society and political involvement were direct students of Socrates. Though in my comment I was alluding to the founding of the US in particular. The writings and philosophy that underpinned the founding and logic of this nation were incredible and undoubtedly set the stage for a rural backwoods colony to, in less than 300 years, become the most powerful and influential nation in the world. Of course much of the philosophy and logic that the nation was founded on has been disregarded or ignored when convenient and it's not so hard to argue that our ongoing success has been more the result of inertia than a fundamental superiority.
      - watwut 8y ago
        People having citizenship and thus right to vote were minority in Athens. And I dont mean just that it excluded women and slaves. It was more then in other cities, but still a minority. Two of Socrates students, overthrown the democratic government twice and killed a lot of people. Thousands, plus others lost properties or were send away. One of those students was friend of Socrates. The authoritarian killers here being friends and students of Socrates. So you know, some hard feelings are to be expected toward Socrates too. Maybe he was considered dangerous, because his ideas were used in past to kill a lot of people. Where rule based society would respect amnesty (there was amnesty) despite fear and danger, this one was violent. Socrates might been big thinker, but his death is not the only one in the story that counts or counted for his contemporaries. It is not totally entirely clear how Socrates was involved with what, but the society there was dealing with a lot of violence in close memory and that is ignoring violence against slaves. It took a lot of violence too, in coming to power for US, not just writings and philosophy. And a lot of that philosophy was not "disregarded" in violence, but instead used to argue for violence and to defend violence. For both good and bad causes. And a lot of gains were not inertia, it was decision to take things and fight to take things from others. Not that other powers were not like that too, absolutely they were violent and entitled too. But, the freedom rhetorics was often used to take away property or freedom from others.

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.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Socrates lived in Athens during Athenian democracy, which was a true and literal democracy, and was executed by democratic vote of 500 Athenian citizen jurors - 52% to 48%, perhaps a validation of Socrates' criticisms of democracy! Aside from that, many individuals at a high level of society and political involvement were direct students of Socrates. Though in my comment I was alluding to the founding of the US in particular. The writings and philosophy that underpinned the founding and logic of this nation were incredible and undoubtedly set the stage for a rural backwoods colony to, in less than 300 years, become the most powerful and influential nation in the world. Of course much of the philosophy and logic that the nation was founded on has been disregarded or ignored when convenient and it's not so hard to argue that our ongoing success has been more the result of inertia than a fundamental superiority.
    - watwut 8y ago
      People having citizenship and thus right to vote were minority in Athens. And I dont mean just that it excluded women and slaves. It was more then in other cities, but still a minority. Two of Socrates students, overthrown the democratic government twice and killed a lot of people. Thousands, plus others lost properties or were send away. One of those students was friend of Socrates. The authoritarian killers here being friends and students of Socrates. So you know, some hard feelings are to be expected toward Socrates too. Maybe he was considered dangerous, because his ideas were used in past to kill a lot of people. Where rule based society would respect amnesty (there was amnesty) despite fear and danger, this one was violent. Socrates might been big thinker, but his death is not the only one in the story that counts or counted for his contemporaries. It is not totally entirely clear how Socrates was involved with what, but the society there was dealing with a lot of violence in close memory and that is ignoring violence against slaves. It took a lot of violence too, in coming to power for US, not just writings and philosophy. And a lot of that philosophy was not "disregarded" in violence, but instead used to argue for violence and to defend violence. For both good and bad causes. And a lot of gains were not inertia, it was decision to take things and fight to take things from others. Not that other powers were not like that too, absolutely they were violent and entitled too. But, the freedom rhetorics was often used to take away property or freedom from others.