There is a definite ambiguity about whether the Platonic Socrates
can refuse to defend himself against persecution to the best of his ability, or
escape punishment to the best of his ability, without compromising his morals
(as either way he chooses to do neither and remain steadfast in his commitments).
And if there is a way to be morally uncompromising and live, why does Socrates
not do so? Is he ignorant of it? Another possibility is that the death or
noncompliance is itself is an illustrative Socratic choice, as an example of what is right to do in opposition to an unjust society. Or maybe still the uncompromising plainness of Socrates was an artistic addition of Plato, to make his
friend seem a little bit less or a little bit more human than he was at the end.
I also thought that Socrates was contradicting himself when he claimed that it would be unjust to escape his punishment. Maybe Socrates thought that a dishonest action following a hasty decision would not lead to a just end. I think Socrates decision to use his conviction as a lesson fascinating and effective. No one was capable of providing an argument in Socrates defense that could convince him otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Socrates would have found a way to talk himself out of his punishment. He seems like he would be able to find an argument as to why it would not be morally uncompromising, but alas he does not. I wonder if Plato did this on purpose to make Socrates appear as though his morality is strong. I wonder if Plato was posing the thought as to whether or not morality is a stronger force than wisdom or knowledge.
ReplyDelete