THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES

A  WIDE  CANVAS

THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES

Philosophers live philosophy

The trial and the last days of Socrates are moving. They exert a strong civilising influence on any serious student of life and letters. Any one can talk philosophy, but that does not make one a philosopher. A philosopher has to LIVE philosophy. That is what Socrates did. That is why we study his life and words.

The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.
"Socrates": licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia commons.

The trial and the last days are covered in several dialogues of Plato and we must study them to gain true understanding. I will present here some extracts from the work of Xenophon.He was not a philosopher like Plato and hence his account is more down to earth. He was not present at the trial, but he relies on the record of  Hermogenes who was. He constantly assures us of their accuracy. Besides, his account tallies in all essential respects with that of Plato, though lacking his philosophical flourish.  In several areas Xenophon gives his reasoning about why Socrates did the things he did, whereas Plato merely confines himself to recording what Socrates said. Scholars say that since Socrates did not keep any notes or follow a prepared speech, the high philosophical tone that we observe in Plato's dialogues might be reflection of his own philosophical position. 

Xenophon,Greek historian. 439- 354 BC
He was also a student of Socrates,like Plato.

Socrates charged
The charges brought against Socrates were:

Not recognising the gods recognised by the State, and introducing new gods; and corrupting the youth.

(This does not mean that the charge of corruption was  related to not recognising the old gods. These were two separate charges.)

It is necessary to understand the nature of the first charge in the context of the then Athenian society.  The foundation of Athenian law was  "Nomos", which can be translated as custom, tradition, law, convention, etc. This could be codified as law, or present strong in the collective memory and common belief and behaviour of the society. Recognising- ie worshipping  and honouring the gods was an essential aspect of the society. It meant not only that the common festivals and public sacrifices and celebrations had to be properly observed, in which citizens had to participate, but the gods had to be properly honoured and worshipped by individuals.  And this was considered an important duty of the citizens. Anyone violating  or disrupting it was thus failing in his civic duties. That someone has a particular philosophy or belief did not seem to have mattered, so long as the religious obligation was fulfilled.

Socrates refuted both charges strongly.

Xenophon gives many examples from the day to day conversations of Socrates to show how he was always talking from a sense of noble conduct born of a high sense and standard of self-discipline. Once talking to Aristodemus who said that the gods were too magnificent to need our worship, Socrates said:

Now, God was not content with merely caring for the body; what is far more important, he also endowed man with mind in its higher form. What other animal, in the first place, has a mind that is aware of the existence of the gods, who have set in order the greatest beauty on the grandest scale? What kind of creatures except man worships the gods?

Isn't it quite evident to you that compared with other creatures, men live like gods, naturally supreme both in body and in mind?

....how can you think that the gods have no concern for you? Can't you see that the most enduring  and wise of human things- States and nations- are the most devout, and that the most intelligent times of life are the ones which are the most full of regard for the gods?

 get into your head that your own mind , which is inside you,controls your body as it wills; and in the same way you must believe that the intelligence which is in the universe disposes all things just as it pleases.

He thus impressed on Aristodemus the necessity of honouring the gods. Xenophon  records that  with such  a teaching, he made his associates refrain from irreverent, wrong and discreditable actions not only in public but even when they were alone " for the simple reason that they had made up their minds that none of their actions could ever escape  the knowledge of the gods". Thus, the fear of the gods was instilled in them, which became the basis of self-discipline.

Socrates said addressing  Antiphon:

you identify happiness with luxury and extravagance, but I have always thought that to need nothing is divine, and to need as little as possible is the nearest approach to the divine, and that what is divine is best, and what is nearest to the divine is the next best.

A man who sells his favours for  a price to anyone who wants them is called a catamite;.... those who sell wisdom at a price to anyone who wants it are called sophists; but if anyone, by imparting any edifying knowledge ...makes a friend of one whom he knows to be naturally gifted, we consider that he is behaving as a truly  good citizen should behave....And in company with good friends, I open and read from beginning to end the books in which the wise men of past times have written down and bequeathed to us their treasures.

The Trial and Defence

These are the kinds of conversations Socrates  used to have with friends throughout his life. So when the trial came, and he had to defend himself, he said that 'his whole life had been a preparation for his defence'! Asked to explain how, he said:

Because I have consistently done no wrong. and this, I think is the finest preparation for a defence.

Socrates claimed that twice he prepared to make a defence, but the divine opposed him! He said (mentioning one of his accusers):

Meletus himself could, if he had chosen, have seen me sacrificing during the communal festivals and at the public altars. As for my claim that a divine voice comes to me and communicates what I must do, how in claiming this am I introducing new deities? Those who rely on bird-calls and the utterances of men are, I suppose, receiving guidance from voices. Can there be any doubt that thunder has a voice or that it is an omen of the greatest significance?... whereas others state that it is birds and utterances and  chance meetings and oracles which forewarn them, I call it divine. I think that in using this description I am being more accurate and more devout than those who ascribe the power of the gods to birds.

Do you know anyone who is less of a slave to bodily desires than I am?

Do you know anyone more free, since I accept no gratuities  or payment from anyone?

Could you possibly regard anyone as more upright than  the man who is so in tune with his immediate circumstances that he has no need of anything extraneous?

 .....while others acquire their shop-bought luxuries at  high price, I arrange for greater, mental luxuries  at no cost at all.

... tell me of anyone who has stopped worshipping the gods because of me, or who has substituted arrogance for humility, or extravagance for economy, or drunkenness for moderate drinking, or flabbiness for exercise, or who has given to any base indulgence because of me?

Here, Xenophon gives a bit of his own reasoning . He says that though Socrates was neither irreligious nor unfair towards others, still he did not believe that he should beg for his life, as he felt that his time had come! Socrates also felt that to propose a counter-penalty (lesser punishment) would amount to admission of his guilt. When friends urged him to escape, he refused saying whether they knew of any place which was free from death!

Socrates summed up his defence thus:

it has not been proved that I committed any of the crimes mentioned in the indictment. It has not been shown that I sacrifice to any new deities or swear by them, or recognise other deities instead of Zeus  and Hera  and their divine companions. How could I corrupt the young by making endurance and economy second nature to them?  

the shame falls not on me but on those who condemned me.

Thus, throughout the trial, Socrates was defiant, though defending himself. He was arguing his case, but was not apologetic. He was certain he was not wrong and there was no need to seek any favour by way of pleading for lesser penalty. Above all, he had a sense of being guided by the divine force, and he submitted to it without hesitation. He had probably an intimation of his end and so he did not want to defy or  seek to dodge the divine will.## 

Xenophon feels that this strong stand of Socrates was arrogance, which annoyed the jurors and  thus Socrates forced them to condemn him! Xenophon ends his account of the trial  with these words:

When I consider how wise the man was, and how high-minded, I am bound to remember him, and when I remember him, I am bound to admire him.

Well, Xenophon could not know that not only he but the entire civilised world was bound to remember Socrates, and by remembering him, honour him for two thousand five hundred years!

(Quotations here are from the edition by Robin Waterfield of Xenophon: Conversations of Socrates. Penguin Classics,1990. Robin Waterfield's translations are, I have found, the best and his introductions are full of helpful insights.)

Another view of Xenophon. 



Human affairs and Divine Voice

## Is it possible that some one got such divine guidance, when charged with a serious offence, not to prepare his own defence? Is such a claim credible?


Let us leave all theory and 

speculation aside.It has actually happened. In 1908, Sri Aurobindo was implicated in the Alipore Bomb case, and was lodged in the Alipore Jail. The case was going on in the court.One day, the earlier counsel went, and C.R.Das came in his place , started  arguing the case. Sri Aurobindo used to follow the arguments keenly, take notes and pass them on to Das. Then the Divine voice intervened. This is how Sri Aurobindo himself described it:

When the trial opened in  the Sessions Court, I began to write many instructions for my Counsel as to what was false in the evidence against me and on what points the witness might be cross-examined. Then something happened which I had not expected. The arrangements which had been made for my defence were suddenly changed and another counsel stood there to defend me......Srijut Chittaranjan Das.When I saw him, I was satisfied, but I still thought it necessary to write instructions. Then all that was put away, and I heard the message from within, "This is the man who will save you....Put aside these papers.It is not you who will instruct him. I will instruct him." From that time I did not of myself speak a word to my Counsel....with what result you know. I knew all along what HE meant for me, for I heard it again and again, always I listened to the voice within: " I am guiding, therefore fear not."

Sri Aurobindo, Uttarpara Speech. Delivered on 30 May,1909. Published on 1 June 1909.Sri Aurobindo was acquitted by the English Judge.


Wisemen and the world

Socrates's trial raises an important question, relevant even today. Can a man of knowledge or wisdom afford to conduct his public life in such a way as to defy the customs and traditions of the society, or even give such an impression? To day it is common for our 'intellectuals' and  progressive politicians to ridicule the people for their religious practices, while they themselves are introducing new practices in many fields.  The Indian tradition is also like the Greek: society depends on some basic customs and practices.These are all not enacted by the State and  enforced by its power. While there could be people who by their education or other attainments could pass the stage where they need such customs for their own personal edification or satisfaction, there are many others who have not attained such a state  who need them. But the example of the top few could unsettle the minds of the common man, and undermine the society's cohesion. The Gita says clearly in this regard:

Yad yadacharati sreshta:
tattadeve taro jana:
Sa yat pramaanam kurutae 
loka:tat anuvartate                                      3.21

Whatever the superior person does, that is followed by others. What he demonstrates by action, that people follow.

Na mae parthasthi kartavyam
trishu lokeshu kinchana.
Naanavaaptam avaaptavyam
varta eva cha karmani                                 3.22

O Partha! I have no duty , there is nothing I have not gained, there is nothing I have to gain in all the three worlds. Yet I continue in Karma.

Yadi aham na varteyam
jaatu karmani atindrata:
Mama vartamanuvartantae
manushyaa: partha sarvasha:                     3.23

 O Partha! If  ever I did not continue in Karma without relaxation, men would in every way follow in My wake!

Saktaa: karmani avidvaamso
yataa kurvanti bharata
Kuryaat vidvaams tatha  asakta:
chikirshu: lokasangraham.                          3.25

As the unwise perform karma out of attachment, so should the wise one act, but without attachment, desirous of the welfare (Lokasangraham- social cohesion, integrity of the society) of the world.

Prakrutaer guna sammoodha:
sajjante guna karmasu:
Taan krutsnavido mandaan
krtsnavinna vichaala aet.                          3.29

Men of perfect knowledge should not unsettle the understanding of the people of dull wit and imperfect knowledge, who deluded by the gunas of prakriti attach themselves to the functions of the gunas.

There can be no clearer exposition of the importance of the wise people setting a good example by their action in following the common practices, even while not needing them personally, as these are meant for the common people.This is said in the Gita in the context of explaining the 'Yajnas' which were the ancient, eternal bonds between man and the 'devas' (gods) for their mutual benefit. Society should not discontinue them.

 Today, not only the intellectuals, atheists, 'progressive' etc elements are discouraging people from performing their religious duties; even some of the new age gurus are advocating abandonment of traditional practices and adoption of new ones. We can appreciate if the ancient Athenian society felt that Socrates was perhaps setting a bad example by speaking against the gods. 

But Socrates did no such thing. Socrates was not irreligious, or disrespectful of the gods. His teaching did not involve social religion but private ethics- virtue. Socrates was teaching people to adopt virtuous conduct as the foundation of worldly happiness and other worldly rewards. He did not criticise the religion of the land, or their traditional practices. He only wanted them to even exceed the 'nomos'- the customary standards or practices, not abandon them. When people were in difficulties which they could not solve with their intellect, he even advised them to seek divination! He even warned people against too much research into astronomy , as he said that it was not possible for man to know everything, and they should not be eager to learn things which the gods had not chosen to reveal, as they could not please the gods thereby!

Xenophon records an instance when Socrates found his eldest son Lamprocles  getting angry with his mother. He asked him whether he knew of people being called ungrateful and why. The boy replied that he knew and that was because they had not returned a kindness received. Was ingratitude then wrong? Yes, it was wrong, said the boy. He led the boy by further questioning to admit that it was wrong to be ungrateful even to an enemy. Was not ingratitude unmitigated injustice? Yes, agreed the boy. Then, the greater the favour received without gratitude, greater the injustice? Yes, said the boy.

Well, said Socrates: who enjoys greater benefits than children from their parents? Their parents have brought them into existence, taught them all the good things, and to see beauty . They  undergo lot of suffering, face many hardships and incur many sacrifices. He tells Lamprocles that the mother is constantly praying to the gods for blessings on the son, and undertaking vows on his account.Yet he says the mother is difficult to put up with! He tells him: "if you can't bear a mother like her, you can't bear what is good for you". He advises him to pray to the gods for forgiveness for the disregard shown to the mother!

When he found two bothers quarrelling, he would tell them that 'brothers were intended by God to be more helpful to each other than hands or feet or even eyes ". Thus in every situation of life, he was teaching basic morality , courtesy, gratitude,- all the basic virtues and reminding people about God  and virtuous conduct.

Socrates and Athens: the bond

Socrates was not a social reformer, as that category is understood. He was a moral reformer. He wanted people to lead a virtuous life, not merely follow the traditional customs.He wanted them to base such conduct on wisdom which they could themselves discover. Their conviction should exceed the conventions. He felt it was his divine mission to teach this to Athens. He said at his trial:

I was attached to this city by the god- though it seems a ridiculous thing to say- as upon a great and noble horse which was sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred by a kind of gadfly. It is to fulfill some such function that I believe the god has placed me in this city. (Tr.G.M.A.Grube)

So his love for Athens was not merely because of his civic affections- it was his divine charge. That explains why he refused to escape, when his friends suggested it. More than civic duty, or moral obligation,  ( which he certainly respected),he was fulfilling a divine command that he felt he had.

Spiritual but not religious?

There are many today who call themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. They are sincere in wanting to lead a 'virtuous' life, but do not feel like following an organised religion, or observe its rites and rituals, or even accept its dogma. Socrates has shown us how one could be traditional in religion, and yet free in spirit, devoted to a life of wisdom and virtue!

In this sense, he strongly reminds us of the Upanishadic seers or Masters. They have sprung from the tradition, but have outgrown the need for the early forms and practices. But they do not decry them on this account but show how they could be given a different meaning , thereby enlarging their scope and reach! This is what we see perfected in the Gita- ancient terms like yajna, karma, yoga, jnana,sankhya etc are taken up and given new significance! This way, one could be religious, and yet spiritual!

 

Why exactly such a charge that he was dishonouring the gods was brought against Socrates is intriguing.There is a view that Socrates held some unpopular views on political matters- for instance, he was considered pro-Spartan in his sympathies, and did not favour the democratic polity-  and that he was really tried for those views. But the way he met the charge, and met his end puts the seal on the noblest of lives that the West has seen.

The tallest figure in Western civilisation.
By Joanbanjo (Own work)CC BY-SA 3.0 creative commons via Wikimedia commons.


NOTE:

Our knowledge of Socrates is derived entirely from the West. Western scholars always look at things through their prejudiced glasses. They dispute facts when known, and theorise and guess, when they do not know. Unfortunately, not many Indian scholars ( I mean scholars who have studied our systems, not Indians following the Westerners) have studied Socrates and Plato from our perspective. When one comes to Socrates or Plato with knowledge of our own tradition, one is struck by the strong similarities in many areas, though may be not a complete identity.. But this is a subject waiting to be studied. In the meantime, we should take the work of Western scholars with a generous pinch of salt.  There is huge scholarship, but very little real understanding.For, when it comes to philosophy, trust the West to muck it up! Ancient Athens killed Socrates. Modern West has mutilated and murdered philosophy-considered as the pursuit of wisdom..

Plato deals with  the trial and last days of Socrates in four of his dialogues. But that deserves separate coverage.

Those who are interested in detailed study of why Socrates was put to death will find Robin Waterfield's book: Why Socrates Died (W.W.Norton&Co,2009) rewarding. Even more detailed is : The Hemlock Cup by Bettany Hughes (Alfred A.Knopf,2010). It reveals to us the Athens as it was, as it shaped Socrates and as it was in turn affected by Socrates.This is a tremendous book.

THE GOSPEL OF SOCRATES

A  WIDE  CANVAS

THE GOSPEL OF SOCRATES

Gospels: Good for Whom?

'Gospel' is a word we associate with Christianity, and the New Testament. However, it basically means good story or good news, or some ideas in which people believe strongly. When we say 'gospel truth', we mean something authoritative, unquestionable. In India we have the saying: 'what, is it a Veda vaak?'.

Hand-written Latin Bible, Belgium,15th century.
Public domain, wikimedia

Naturally, we ask, 'good for whom?'. It is meant to be good for the listeners, and the followers. But in history, as applied to the Christian usage, it has been good for the Church, for the clergy, for the establishment, more than for the common man.  At one time, Pope was emperor, the church was the biggest land owner, and richest entity, while people at large were slogging. As Jomo Kenyatta, former president of Kenya once said, when the Christian priests came to Africa, they had the Bible (Gospel) and people had the land; in the end, people were left with the gospel, and the Church had the land! Among Christians themselves, Church establishment has enjoyed at the cost of the common man; as between Christians and others, Christians have enjoyed at the cost of other peoples : in Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia.

However, we should not overlook the contributions  that Christianity  made  to the flowering of Western civilisation. As Alain de Botton has shown, even atheists have derived benefit out of religion, even if they did not believe in God or his Gospels. Much of the art, literature, music and even the basic ethics would not have been there in the West but for Christianity. The evil of  Christianity- its violence, intolerance, suppression of other people, forced conversion, etc are due not to the gospel as such, but to the evil genius of those who undertook to spread it, and in the process suppressed or mispresented the 'good news'. In this sense, Christianity differs from Islam, in theory.

Scholars have said that the Quran prescribes 'Jihad' as a religious duty on its followers. And it is literally believed even today by its faithful followers. There is no such mandate in the Gospels ; but it is what the Church and its cadres have done, in practice, and are still doing. In this sense, non-Christians have every reason to distrust 'gospel'- any gospel. The historical experience for them has not been pleasant.

Sayyid Qutb, Islamic scholar, who maintains that Jihad is a permanent state, till the forces of Satan are totally eliminated!


VIOLENCE AND ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS

Perhaps, this is in the very nature of things. The Jewish Old Testament records that Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve,(who had themselves disobeyed God) killed Abel, his brother, out of jealousy. And this is at the beginning of their history!

  15th Century German depiction of Cain and Abel.
Public domain.

The  New Testament records the crucifixion of Christ- and this, and the subsequent 'resurrection' is the very foundation of Christianity, more than the 'good news' that Christ might have given. It is the manner of Christ's death that is the strength of doctrinaire Christianity- that he gave his life to save humanity of its sins (the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world), more than the nature of his teaching.

Islam is based on the many wars that Mohammad himself fought. Thus all three Abrahamic religions are intimately connected with murder, killing, and violence.

 Compare this with the life and message of the venerable Buddha! The Buddha taught us that we have to conquer ourselves- our baser instincts, centred round desire, and not the world outside! Once we understand that the world causes suffering (duhkka), who will desire to rule the world? This is the 'good news' that Nachiketas had understood earlier, and so rejected the offer of Yama of a long life, riches, rulership, etc! (Kathopanishad)

DEATH OF SOCRATES AND THE RISE OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Western tradition, if their religious history began with murder and violence, their philosophic quest also begins with a death-  death of Socrates, by drinking hemlock, as directed by the city council. (He could have been crucified,too, but they chose to award him the gentler form of death sentence.They also offered him a choice: he could pay a fine  and avoid death, but he chose to stick to his principles and refused to pay the fine.) Being West, where the sun sets, it seems they will rise only when a life sets!

By Sting [CC BY SA 2.5 creativecommons via Wikimedia commons]

It is said that not much is known about the details of the life of Socrates. What we know comes from the writings of Plato, Xenophon and others. But we know enough from these to form an idea of his character and teachings. He did not himself write anything, but enough of his words have been recorded by Plato, and Xenophon, his students. There are some who even doubt whether Socrates was a real person, or a mere figure invented by Plato! But there is no doubt that he existed and his name was famous even among the old authorities.

Plato gives enough details of his family: he was not from an aristocratic family;  his father was Sophroniscus, a stone mason; mother was Phaenarete. His wife was Xanthippe, a shrew and there are stories about her actions. Socrates had three sons, the eldest of whom, Lamprocles, was 15 when Socrates died. He had learnt the craft from his father and probably worked as a mason, before taking up philosophy full time. According to Plato, he was not charging anything for his teaching, and so could not support the family- a point which made his wife complain that he was neglecting his family! It seems in all cultures, wisdom  and wealth are always distinct!

Tiruvalluvar says in Kural 374:

The world is always divided into two distinct categories, caused by destiny: the pursuit of wealth, and the attainment of wisdom.

Socrates lived a very active life, participating in the life of the community. He even served in the Peloponnesian War. He was not sitting in a cave or in ivory tower, but went round the city, mixed with the people, engaging them in conversation. He was reportedly ugly in looks ( like our own Vyasa); he was short and stout, with a flat nose and eyes which gave the appearance that he was always staring!  Aristophanes made fun of this aspect in his works, as the Greeks were votaries of beauty- but Socrates had a different idea of beauty. For him, real beauty came from the good life, not mere physical appearance.Probably, such thinking influenced Plato into the belief that there is an ideal Form behind all worldly categories!

What were the charges for which Socrates was awarded the death sentence? They were that he was not respecting the ancient gods of the city, and introducing his own, and that he was corrupting the youth. At the trial, which has become famous as a defining moment of our civilisation, he refuted both the charges, and effectively. This is recorded in detail by both Plato and Xenophon, in separate works, both named 'Apology.' They record the same events but from differing perspectives- showing that different students absorb the same teachings or interpret the same things in different ways. Plato was a philosopher, Xenophon was not.

It seems from the proceedings that the trial was not based on merits of the case, or was not instituted solely to find out truth or render justice, but was brought on by the political enemies of Socrates to settle some score. The political fortunes of Athens had changed with the defeat of Athens by Sparta and somehow Socrates had been considered undesirable. However at the trial Socrates seems to have angered the jury by not being apologetic but defiant, even saying that instead of punishing him the city should honour him for his services! The Council (of 500) was not in a mood to listen and passed the verdict of death 280-221.. Also it shows how even with such numbers, democracy is actually mob rule. His friends offered to bribe the guards and help him escape, but Socrates refused, saying he was not afraid of death as the soul was immortal, and that he loved Athens so that he could not think of exile. 

Socrates  accepting the cup of poison cheerfully!
by Walter Crane, Wikimedia commons.



SOCRATES: MESSAGE AND THE METHOD

There are two aspects of Socratic legacy: his message and his method.

The message of Socrates is, like all great Truths, both simple and direct. He asked: what is the right way to live? People desire attainment of happiness, but it comes only from wisdom. The highest wisdom is to 'Know  Yourself'.  This knowledge is both caused by and results in a life of virtue- what he termed 'the good life'- the right way of life. In life, we have to make choices, but it is only wisdom that will lead us to make the right choices that bring us happiness. So, happiness can be found only as a result of an ethical life. It is virtue  based on wisdom which thus helps us solve the practical problems of life. Such a happy person is dear even to the gods. "And what kind of person is more loved by the gods than the one who is most happy", Xenophon records in Memorabilia, describing Socrates.

 It is important to note this. According to Socrates, ethics is not derived from some code, given by God or some high authority. It is derived from pure wisdom, and thus rational, not theological. We should subject our lives to a critical examination, and lead a life of virtue based on wisdom, derived from self-knowledge. Once we know what is right, that is what we should do: knowledge is virtue."The unexamined life is not a life worth living for a human being", said Socrates  (Apology,38a)

The insistence upon wisdom as the foundation of happiness, and self-knowledge as the highest wisdom is the very reflection of our Upanishadic thought: one has to be at peace with oneself, before he can find or enjoy happiness outside. And Atma Jnana- knowledge of the self is the only true knowledge and foundation of all wisdom: knowing which everything is known, as the Upanishads say.

The Socratic method is not laborious instruction. Socrates proceeds by arguments or questioning- what is called "dialogue". He engages people in conversation, goes on questioning and examining their  own statements. Ultimately, people realise that their initial assumptions, on the basis of which they talked are all wrong! This again is a feature we come across in the Upanishads.

This is a tremendous method. Socrates does not assume that he teaches from a superior position- from a position of knowledge. He says famously that he does not know- but unlike us,  he knows that the does not know! That is his strength. So in the end of the dialogue, when we realise that our arguments have been wrong, our assumptions were not right- this comes as a revelation, not as a doctrine! Socrates thus sets us thinking- ie examining our assumptions, and the life which is based on them!  Thus Socrates has taught us, without teaching us any theory or dogma! Socrates is thus a Guru who initiates with his dialogues, not an acharya who instructs us with his theories!

The basis of this method is what is called 'turn around'. If we know we do not know, we can be taught. But if we think that we know, we will not be inclined to learn further. So, Socrates makes us realise , by ourselves, based on our own words, that we may not know, after all! He does not say: here, you fool! You do not know! He leads us gently to examine our position, our thoughts and presumptions.

Those who are already wise no longer love wisdom- ie engage in philosophy, whether they are gods or men.Nor do they love it who are so ignorant that they are bad, for no bad or stupid man loves wisdom. There remain only those who have this  bad thing, ignorance, but have not yet been made ignorant or stupid  by it.  They are conscious of knowing what they don't know. The upshot is that those who are as yet neither good nor bad love wisdom, while all those who are bad do not..

Socrates in Lysis, 218b.Plato: Complete Works. Ed. John M.Cooper. Hackett, 1997.

This is a stunning reflection of what the Buddha had said a century earlier. It is said that on his Enlightenment, the Buddha's first impulse was to continue in that blessed state of bliss. But then he thought of the world.

Some there are who are clear-sighted and do not need my teachings, and some whose eyes are clouded with dust who will not heed it though given; but between these two there are also some with but little dust in their eyes, who can be helped to see; and for the sake of these I will go among mankind and teach.

From: Arthur Osborne: For Those With Little Dust, Part II. Sri Ramanasramam.1990.

Thus, in the ancient tradition, they knew that not every one was fit for or interested in receiving the highest teachings. In the Hindu tradition, it was for the 'Mumukshu' ie those who have risen above the world, and seek Liberation. Even Christ told people 'not to cast pearls before swine'.But organised Christianity and Islam have taken it upon themselves to 'convert' the whole earth!

ONE TRUTH

So, in the Socratic method, the initial turn around is followed by reflection or meditation. This too is based on a deep insight. It may be stated thus:

• There is a Truth behind the world or phenomena.
• This Truth is knowable.
• This Truth can be discovered. 

This is the basis of what we can call the spiritual life, as different from the merely religious life. If there is a Truth, and it is knowable, does it not become the duty of a rational, sane man, to discover it? And once discovered, does it not become his obligation to follow it?

In the Socratic view, this Truth is universal- it governs the whole universe.In that sense, it is One- ie everything in the Universe falls into place in a great harmony in the light of or on the basis of this Truth. Corresponding to that, there is an inner harmony in our being. The correspondence between the inner harmony and the greater, universal harmony ( microcosm and macrocosm) is the basis of wisdom, happiness, virtue, or truth, beauty, goodness. Discovering it and living in the light of it is the good life!

There is meaning in Socrates choosing the youth to convey this message. They are the future citizens, and they can be moulded, before 'the establishment' claims them! The older generation is too deeply entrenched in its own thought patterns to be persuaded otherwise. This unfortunately proved his undoing- it gave a handle to opponents to say he was corrupting the youth!

WISDOM IS KNOWLEDGE OF SOUL

The whole Socratic message can be summed up in these words:

Man requires Happiness, but seeks the pleasures of the world.

Man requires Wisdom,  but seeks information or knowledge of the world.

Man needs Wisdom, but pursues wealth.

 Socrates forcefully removing Alcibiades from sensual pleasure.
Painting by Jean Baptiste Regnault,1791. Public domain.

Socrates points out that people strive to accumulate wealth to pass on to their children, but do not strive to make the children better!

For Socrates, this Wisdom (Sophia in Greek is a word with deep meanings.) is related to our soul.He said:

The command that we should know ourselves means that we should know our souls

Alcibiades,I,130e.

Socrates believed that this wisdom was not a mere acquisition or possession, but something which cleansed us, renewed and restored us (katharsis). He said:

....this is not the right exchange to attain virtue- to exchange pleasures for pleasures, pains for pains, and fears for fears, the greater for the less, like coins, but that the only valid currency for which all these things should be exchanged is wisdom. With this we have real courage and moderation and justice, and in a word,true virtue......in truth, moderation and courage and justice are a purging away of all such things, and wisdom itself is a kind of purging or purification.

It is likely that those who established the mystic rites for us were not inferior persons but were speaking in riddles long ago when they said that whoever arrives in the underworld uninitiated  and unsanctified will wallow in the mire, whereas he who arrives there purified  and initiated will dwell with the gods.

Phaedo, 69 bc

Thus, Socrates is very clearly enunciating here that wisdom is the foundation of virtue which not only leads to happiness here, but also takes care of the soul after death!

When one has led a virtuous life, devoted to the pursuit of wisdom, which purifies and makes one fit to live with the gods, when one knew that the soul is immortal, why should he fear death? So, Socrates refused to plead for a lesser penalty , or pay the fine, or escape into exile. He drinks the poisoned hemlock cheerfully and tells his friends with him then:

NOW, the hour to part has come. I go to die, you go to live. WHICH OF US GOES TO THE BETTER LOT IS KNOWN TO NO ONE EXCEPT THE GOD.

Apology,42a

Socrates being given the hemlock cup.
Jacques Louis David, 1787

In the entire Western tradition or civilisation, if anything truly deserves the name Gospel, it is the teaching of Socrates.It is the unqualified, unmediated good news: Lead a life of virtue based on wisdom. You enjoy this world and the next.

COLD SCIENCE: DETAILS DESTROY DELIGHT

A  WIDE  CANVAS

COLD SCIENCE: DETAILS DESTROY DELIGHT

KEATS AND THE RAINBOW

In an earlier post, I said how the moon landing has robbed the moon of all the romance the very name invoked , in all cultures. We gained some 'scientific' knowledge which greedy politicians and capitalists will try to exploit for power or gain, but humanity lost a part of its ancient heritage- a source of joy for ever. I quoted the words of C.S.Lewis in this context.

Thinking about it further, I came across these lines of Keats on this very theme, written in 1819:

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of  cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given 
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine-
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.

Lamia, Part II,lines 229-238

John Keats. public domain.

These lines have some history. William Hazlitt had in his 1818 lecture " On Poetry in General" said:

"the progress of knowledge and refinement has a tendency to subscribe the limits of the imagination and to clip the wings of poetry."

It was a feeling generally shared by men of letters that the effect of the progress of science (natural philosophy) was to render every natural phenomenon purely material in nature, subject to measurement and manipulation ( conquer all mysteries by rule and line), thus depriving them not only of religious significance, but even natural charm and the sense of wonder. It is reported that  at a dinner on December 27, 1817 Keats and Charles Lamb had agreed that "Newton destroyed all the Poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism". A week earlier, Keats had seen a performance of Edmund Kean, a celebrated tragic actor of the day, in Shakespeare's Richard III. In the review that Keats wrote about it which appeared on December 21,1817. he said:

"Kean! Kean! have...a pity for us in these cold and enfeebling times! Cheer us a little in the failure of our days! for romance lives but in books. The goblin is driven from the heath, and the rainbow is robbed of its mystery!"

Rainbow at Maraetai Beach, New Zealand.

It is said that it is not quite accurate to accuse Newton in this connection. However, Newton was the greatest scientist of the day and invoking his name stands for the nature of the scientific quest, which reduced everything to matter and its properties, subject to measurement and control. Thus , Nature lost is mysterious charm, which annoyed the Romantic poets.Newton himself might not have intended this: in fact he believed he was only explaining God's laws.And Alexander Pope, in his famous couplet on Newton written on his death on March 21, 1727 wrote:

NATURE and Nature's laws lay hid in Night:
God said, "Let Newton be!" and all was Light!

But in the course of its onward march, science has turned against God and religion, and reduced nature to names, forces and processes, reducing the universe itself to a meaningless and purposeless show.

Richard Dawkins and Rainbow!

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and atheist took the words 'unweave the rainbow' from the above poem  for the title of his 1998 book "Unweaving The Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and The Appetite For Wonder". He said that Keats had not perceived the matter properly. In unravelling the secrets of Nature, science was only revealing the wonder of its laws and this was no less poetic. He said that as a scientist he saw the world as full of wonders and derived pleasure. Science thus did not affect the poetic imagination adversely. However, this book itself  was occasioned by the criticism of his two earlier books: 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' which had deeply disturbed the readers.

But in the book, Dawkins quotes from another book: 'The Second Law' by Peter Atkins:

We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of  change is decay. At root there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the weakness we have to accept as we peer deeply  and dispassionately into  the heart of the Universe.

Dawkins comments on this:

Such very proper purging of saccharine false  purpose; such laudable tough mindedness in the debunking of cosmic sentimentality  must not be confused with the loss of personal hope. Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don't; not if we are sane.

Coming from leading scientists, such absurdity is astounding! If the Universe is moving in the direction of chaos, does it not become the purpose, by itself? That is, if the cosmos achieves chaos in the end, ie if the cosmos in inexorably moving towards  chaos, does it not constitute its purpose?  Does it end in chaos by mistake?
 Come on, Mr. Atkins, what do you really mean? 

Picture of Chaos- state before creation from Greek mythology.


And, Dawkins "presumes" that there is no purpose. What is the proof? Is this science, or some new mythology?

'Tying our hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos': this is the crux of the matter. Earthly existence loses its meaning if it is not based on hope. Our life acquires meaning if seen in the light of a purpose, greater than birth,feeding,  breeding and death- which animals also share with us.  And the ultimate hope is derived from the fate of the universe. Will any one live in London or New York if there is uncertainty or doubt about its fate? What these scientists say in flowery language amounts to this: 'Oh, you are on this ship! This ship will slowly disintegrate on the high seas, for that is how it is made. But why bother about the fate of the ship? You have your human ambitions and perceptions.Amuse yourselves with your toys and games. So, carry on."

Turbulence in the tip vortex from an air plane wing- an important aspect of modern chaos theory.

There is a finer point to be noted here. The Abrahamic religions believe in Apocalypse- the end of time, when everything will  finally end in destruction. Hinduism talks about  eternal cycles of evolution and involution- there is no real destruction of anything, (as there had been no "creation") only change of form. One cycle will end, but another will start.

                                                 An orthodox Christian depiction of apocalypse

 So, all religions believe that the world will end- once for all,    ( the Abrahamic religions) or for the time being,(for the Hindus) till the next cycle starts.(It is indeed wrong to call it 'end'; it is a pause in the march of eternity, state of suspended animation, as nothing gets 'destroyed' but only involuted.)  What these scientists talk about entropy, chaos, etc is directly opposed to the Abrahamic religions, but does not make any fresh sense to the Hindus or frighten them! They are only amused by such presumptions!

We Hindus go a step further. We do not have to bother about the fate of the Universe. We have to realise our true nature or Atma which is eternal. As it is, the world gets dissolved daily when we sleep! ie  for the person who is asleep, it is as if the world does not exist! A Hindu has to transcend the universe whether it is eternal, or ends in chaos, anything else in between!  In that sense, his hope is not tied to the fate of the cosmos!

Too many 'facts' convey no meaning!

When we have too much information, too much data, we cannot make sense of it. How can we exercise our imagination or aesthetic sense if we are asked to deal with hard facts all the time? Can we enjoy a meal if we are required to calculate the calories and minerals present in it every time? We know the meal nourishes us, or ought to. But is it only calories, minerals and vitamins?

We have a nice scene in "Hard Times" by Dickens. We have the school owner, Thomas Gradgrind, " A man of realities. A man of fact  and calculations...With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket..ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to."

He comes to the school, and confronts a girl, Sissy Jupe.After telling her that Sissy is no name, and it ought to be Cecilia, and after learning that her father breaks horses, asks her to "give me your definition of a horse". Little Sissy has seen horses all her life, but a definition? Sissy, girl number twenty, is unable to define a horse! So now, he turns to a boy Bitzer for his definition. And is he ready! Bitzer answers:

Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.

"Now girl number twenty", said Mr.Gradgrind. "You know what a horse is."

Well. do we know what a horse is from this definition? Perhaps, scientists like Atkins and Dawkins will know. But we will rather turn to a poet to learn about  horses!

The Old Brown Horse: W.f.Holmes


The old brown horse looks over the fence
In a weary sort of way;
He seems to be saying to all who pass:
"Well, folks, I have had my day-
I am simply watching the world go by,
And nobody seems to mind,
As they are dashing past in their motor-cars,
A horse who is lame and half-blind."

The old brown horse has a shaggy coat,
But once he was young and trim,
And he used to trot through the woods and lanes
With the man who was fond of him.
But his master rides in a motor-car,
And it makes him feel quite sad.

Sometimes a friendly soul will stop
Near the fence, where the tired old head
Rests wearily on the topmost bar,
And a friendly word is said.
Then the old brown horse gives a little sigh
As he feels the kindly touch
Of a hand on his mane or shaggy coat,
And he doesn't mind so much.

So if you pass by the field one day,
Just stop for a word or two
With the old brown horse who was once as young
And as full of life as you.
He'll love the touch of your soft young hand,
And I know he will seem to say-
"Oh, thank you, friend, for the kindly thought
For a horse who has had his day."


Don't Mourn For Me:  Author Unknown.

Don't mourn for me
Dear owner, kind and true.

We shared so many secrets;
  those you whispered to my ear,
I 've kept those secrets for you
  lest anyone would hear.

And in return you have kept me
  from being turned out in the cold,
You have fed, watered and cared for me
  while we both grew old.

But God had called me and needs me;
  He says that it is time
I claim that sweet reward
  in a kinder green clime.

He promises sweeter clover
  clear water, rich and pure,
I'll never have to suffer 
  from wounds that humans cannot cure.

I'll be watching out for you
  when comes your judgment day
And together towards the pearly gates
  we again will ride away.

The horse is more than its anatomy, just as the universe is more than what the physicists, biologists, astrophysicists can find out....and they are still finding out. The more powerful the instruments, the more they find out! And without knowing everything, before knowing everything, how can they presume that the cosmos lacks a purpose?

These two poems talk not just about the horse. They talk about the bond that they shared with humans.Any one who has ever kept a pet knows how dear these creatures are! There are so many real life stories about the bonds between horses, dogs, cows and every type of creature and man!  

The second poem actually teaches a spiritual truth: though we are different in form from a horse, we are one with it in spirit, and the Maker makes no distinctions between us. We have to cross the 'pearly gates' together- some thing that Yudhisthira demonstrated , in respect of his dog! The Oneness of Life is thus revealed. 

Science  of zoology will not teach us this, just as astrophysics will not teach us that we and the sun, we and the stars are one!

When will modern Gradgrinds of scientists learn?