I think that the problem is that martyrdom often gets muddled with personal conviction. It seems impossible to me to know whether a person's intentions are those of a martyr without their blatantly stating so. And if a person says that they are a martyr, doesn't that technically undermine their scheme?
The definition of “martyr” that I am using to examine Socrates is different than what is considered the conventional one. Usually, a martyr is somebody who is put to death for refusing to renounce their beliefs (generally religious), but in this context, the definition I am going by is “somebody who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration”. The first definition could be applied to various religious people who have died for their beliefs. Such is the case with the crucifixion of Christ, who willingly died for humanity’s sin. I do not think that this conventional definition applies to Socrates’ situation for he is fighting for his own innocence rather than religious belief.
Socrates is a long-standing iconic figure in several nations worldwide due to what is believed to be his "martyrish death". However, there are plenty of people who believe that Socrates was simply defending himself because he was genuinely willing to die for what he knew to be true. I think that I am being persuaded to join this category for a number of reasons.
During his trial, Socrates defends himself and his principles with passion and a perplexing logic, which, I'm certain, is where the "martyr-figure" label originates. I do not think, however, that Socrates's words are meant to instill a feeling of sympathy upon his audience; rather he is just speaking in the manner he usually would. He is more interested in speaking the truth than inciting pity; making a point of explaining his innocence down to the tiniest detail, not for fear of punishment or death, but because he so strongly believes in what he has to say.
It is the method in which Socrates goes about cross-examining people and their ideas that both makes him a genius and leads to his condemnation. He is a man on a quest to discover whether he is most wise, as the Delphic Oracle suggests, and is therefore accustomed to cross-questioning every man he is confronted with. The logic he uses when talking to people is astounding. He seems able to find fault with any claim presented to him. The man had the great talent of making men feel like fools, leading - as we discover - to his arrest for "corruption" of the youth. This Socratic Method of conversation and cross-examination is also evident in Socrates's trial. He is constantly questioning everything Meletus claims against him. This does not bode well. In the end - though Socrates has put forth a very thorough and convincing argument - I think the court judges have just gotten fed up with him. Perhaps this persistent form of questioning assisted Socrates in achieving martyr status, because in such a situation it is near impossible to tell whether he was adamantly searching out sympathy or simply trying to reach a logical conviction; although anybody who knew what Socrates was really about would realize it was the latter.
From my interpretation of both the personality and speaking strategies of Socrates, I suppose I would have to come to the conclusion that he cannot possibly be a true martyr. The philosopher was too humble a man, too immersed in his principles, too blunt in his speech to ever give a thought to searching out sympathy. He seemed to me to be someone who was to be taken at face value, with no hidden intentions, and I like that about him. Socrates didn't need to be a martyr because he didn't fear death. In Crito, he is even given an opportunity to escape, but he doesn't take it. Socrates has the courage to face death.
The only way to know for sure is to ask. And that brings me back to my previous query: If a martyr admits to being a martyr, isn't their martyrdom thwarted?
Socrates is a long-standing iconic figure in several nations worldwide due to what is believed to be his "martyrish death". However, there are plenty of people who believe that Socrates was simply defending himself because he was genuinely willing to die for what he knew to be true. I think that I am being persuaded to join this category for a number of reasons.
During his trial, Socrates defends himself and his principles with passion and a perplexing logic, which, I'm certain, is where the "martyr-figure" label originates. I do not think, however, that Socrates's words are meant to instill a feeling of sympathy upon his audience; rather he is just speaking in the manner he usually would. He is more interested in speaking the truth than inciting pity; making a point of explaining his innocence down to the tiniest detail, not for fear of punishment or death, but because he so strongly believes in what he has to say.
It is the method in which Socrates goes about cross-examining people and their ideas that both makes him a genius and leads to his condemnation. He is a man on a quest to discover whether he is most wise, as the Delphic Oracle suggests, and is therefore accustomed to cross-questioning every man he is confronted with. The logic he uses when talking to people is astounding. He seems able to find fault with any claim presented to him. The man had the great talent of making men feel like fools, leading - as we discover - to his arrest for "corruption" of the youth. This Socratic Method of conversation and cross-examination is also evident in Socrates's trial. He is constantly questioning everything Meletus claims against him. This does not bode well. In the end - though Socrates has put forth a very thorough and convincing argument - I think the court judges have just gotten fed up with him. Perhaps this persistent form of questioning assisted Socrates in achieving martyr status, because in such a situation it is near impossible to tell whether he was adamantly searching out sympathy or simply trying to reach a logical conviction; although anybody who knew what Socrates was really about would realize it was the latter.
From my interpretation of both the personality and speaking strategies of Socrates, I suppose I would have to come to the conclusion that he cannot possibly be a true martyr. The philosopher was too humble a man, too immersed in his principles, too blunt in his speech to ever give a thought to searching out sympathy. He seemed to me to be someone who was to be taken at face value, with no hidden intentions, and I like that about him. Socrates didn't need to be a martyr because he didn't fear death. In Crito, he is even given an opportunity to escape, but he doesn't take it. Socrates has the courage to face death.
The only way to know for sure is to ask. And that brings me back to my previous query: If a martyr admits to being a martyr, isn't their martyrdom thwarted?
No comments:
Post a Comment