Socrates' last stand

Monday 9/19 3-6pm Personal
Socrates is no doubt a master orator. In Plato's Symposium each of the speakers delineates the nature of Eros, the god of love and gives an account of their appreciation for Eros through eulogizing him. What is amazing about this discussion is that each speaker does well, and even better that the speaker preceding him, and it is in this way that Socrates shines in his approach to eulogizing the god. Each speaker seems to happen upon the nature and manner of Eros in an increasingly accurate….

Socrates who goes last to eulogize eros propounds his audience and goes contrary to their descriptions completely, yet doing so in a manner that cannot be refuted by his audience. This is the manner after which Socrates is to be convicted. Charges brought against him by Rhinon the “general”, Xenainetus the “chief magistrate” and Demophilus the “councilor chair”. Socrates is indicted on charges of not worshiping the gods that the city worships, introducing new divinities and corrupting the youth of the society with his speeches, “making the weaker argument the stronger”.
 

Many in the society are against Socrates in this respect. They believe him to be a troubler of the status quo and someone with opinions that are at odds with civility and political stability. As it seems, Socrates sees himself as a gift to society, and nothing more than a “gad fly” whose purpose is to sting the entrenched political and social fixations of Athenian people. It seems to me that the job he thinks he is performing and the causes of what  his accusers believe he performs is at odds. An so this is the backdrop of Socrates’ Apology. Not so much an apology in the respect that Socrates expresses any grief or remorse for what he has done and the effects his socratic methods has cause or even for the damage perceived by his accusers. But apologizes or gives an account of the life he has lived and how he has come to the conclusion that he has lived it to the best.
 

Socrates has offended many of the people in the top echelons of society, even though he may be of a low social standing. His influence has exceeded his reach. He reminds me of Jesus Christ. He is of low parentage, high influence, especially among the youths or disciples, and one that punches holes in the everyday beliefs in society about religion, leadership and righteousness. They both challenge the “learned” men in society Socrates does this through a series of damning questions but both these historical figures does so under divine instruction. This is a theme that i have questioned in may of these historical leaders. In the “You Can Go Your Own Way” module, Agamemnon does not apologise in any sense of how the word is used today, instead he gives an account of why his behavior cost the lives of so many Achaeans after his fallout with Achilles. Socrates is unapologetic until the end as well. But there is a common thread running through political leaders we have studied, maybe with the exception of Anthony who Plutarch said was one to apologise(show remorse) for his actions and make amends for them. Other than Anthony, the leaders we have examined have either shown no remorseful apology and blamed their actions on the gods, or have provided no account of their actions. Cleopatra abandoned Anthony in his war against Caesar, for which she was principal reason for them fighting a sea-war. Leaving Anthony during the fight and pulling back her two hundred ships from him was an act of betrayal at war-- although Anthony blinded by love didn’t see it as this-- yet she offered no explanation that we are privy to. Maybe because she knew Anthony's affection for her did not demand any “apology” or “account” of her actions. Socrates in a kind of backhanded way said and  portrayed himself as a gift from the gods, a recognised recipient of the blessing of Apollo the god of delphi in one instance and in another, laid blame upon the word of the oracle as to why he acted in the way in which he acted. Questioning those who the thought was brighter than himself, testing their wisdom, finding them faulty in what they claimed, and admonishing them in a an albeit, sarcastical way. Brilliant indeed.
 

Tuesday 9/20 9:40-11am Class
The Athenian court system was a very interesting democratic experience. different in some respects than what i observe in America and other parts of the world today, and similar in some respects. Historically when the Puritans settled in Massachusetts, they proposed a trial by jury and the right to face your accusers. I realize that this premise is not new. Athenian society involved a trial by peers of "qualified men". In 5th Century Athens democracy was at its most experimental. forty thousand adult male citizens, the Athenians were the largest group of people practicing democracy at that time. It involved direct representation. Everyone had a vote in this large-scale citizen participation. Five hundred or so were the audience listening to the speech of accusers and Socrates’ rebuttals.

There is no doubt that among the audience were those that had heard about Socrates and knew the man himself. The greater portion I suspect were those who heard rumors about Socrates, whether good or bad and Socrates did well to defend himself first through his murmuring accusers, and those that had insidiously slandered his name to the youth and multitude of people. I suspect that those that admired Socrates for his reasoning and cognitive skills would not have done extensive work to spread their opinion of the man among the youths in the same way that those that disliked him practiced. Bad news travels fast. The point is that Socrates did many things in his defense that was worthy and wise, but there are also some things in my opinion that an effective leader should not have done, and this brings into question whether Socrates was the intelligent leader we all think him to be or if he was mistaken in some pivotal steps.

My class listed some of the traits of Socrates as a leader:

• He challenges the conventional way of thinking at that time (and ours)

• He encourages independent thought, by not telling people what to think

• He's humble: does not think he has all the answers

• Inspiring in the way he holds to his beliefs in the face of punishment and death

• Restrained in his manners. He never gets frustrated and fuses.

I would agree with most of these opinions but I question whether he encourages independent thought. Yes he was very independent in his own thought, but I'm unsure if he encouraged this thought among those that listened to him and I think the line is too fine to decide properly if he did or did not manipulate his audience. He did however persuade them to his way of thinking in the end and they were unable to find much fault in what he said and seemed to unwillingly agree. This is either because they were truly being challenged in a way that forced them to give up their old way of thinking or because they did not agree with Socrates yet but could not articulate such an argument against him as to find a decent rebuttal. Either reason I assume must have frustrated them if they were not humble enough to receive instruction. And this is where I think Socrates exceeded many men and where I agree with my classmates in that he was a truly humble person willing of receiving instruction as we see in his testament to Diotima and her instructing him in the art of erotics.

We did see however that even those who admired Socrates in a sexual way was offended by him at the same time.
Ped/erasty - the love of boys, was something that pervaded Athenian society. And the account of Alcibiadies gives us an example of just one of the ways Socrates seemed to not pay attention to those that admired him. It can be looked at in different ways, on one hand it could show that Socrates was a bit cold in his dealings with Alcibiadies and other young men that admired him and sought to enter into a friendly and/or sexual relationship with him. While it could also be interpreted that Socrates was really unmoved by the attention that was given him and did not give preferential treatment to any of his followers,even those that invited him to dinner and wrestling and other activities of leisure. Socrates could have just been concerned in the pursuit of wisdom. eros sophia. 

this raised the question in class of intentionality of leadership:
Socrates says he is just investigating the truth. He is not trying to get followers, however the youth love him because they love seeing those in authority humbled by the realization that they are not as wise as they declare to be. Did Socrates enjoy giving these lofty leaders this rude awakening? Surely they hated Socrates for questioning their authority, but must have wanted to put him to death for putting their authority to the test and found it lacking. This is exactly what they did. If Socrates had not played into their hand he could have still been alive. But he would also have damned himself and the morals he lived by. 

Socrates after defending his argument proposes a free meal every day in the marketplace where he would expound with visitors and other sophists, as if to say that this was fitting for a man of his stature and especially for the service the believed he provided for the Athenian society. A meal a day, the only reasonable punishment fitting for a divine “gad fly” is probably how the prosecution and those against Socrates in the jury would have received his proposal. I’m curious however to discover how truly serious Socrates was in his proposal and how ignorant he was to how he would be perceived in the eyes of the Athenian public. it seems to me that although Socrates proposes to be humble in some respects he was not humble in other. On the other hand i have to question whether a man who was that wise indeed was ignorant to the emotions of others, or whether he cared at all about their emotions; or if he was all together emotionally unintelligent himself and did not perceive how his actions and choice of words would reverberate with those around him, not only his peers but those who held the power to imprison, exile or execute him.

1. The power of asking questions:

• In asking good questions, the whole course of thinking is organized and well founded. This leads to the important insights. What needs to be accomplished? What would things look like if we were working optimally? What is holding us back? The tool of good socratic questioning help to tease out answers and insights, an invaluable tool in business and leadership in any venture.

• What do we really mean when we talk about somehting, about anything. For example if we were considering customer service we would need to ask the question, what is customer service itself? How do we get to these answers? These questions of essence open up a whole host of discussions that people never really consider before. you start out with somehting seemingly insignificant and "well known" like customer service, but you end up with somehting complex and more hazy than thought of before. Using socratic method you get to the meat of the matter.

• There is value in the gad fly. When we are in groups, we often times fall into "group think" and may not ask the necessary questions. Not asking questions for the sake of being annoying, but pointed questions that may challenge the status quo at times with the aim of being good for the body of politics (as in the example of Socrates). This may take a big element of courage. Socrates asks his question in a manner that seems to say "lets be reasonable about this" it has a high level of respect to the person he is questioning. His demenear is excellent even while he is devestating. Another great quality of Socrates. Intellectually tough while respecting your leaders and opponents. Does Socrates really do this in a humble way or is he being flippant?