Monday 21 November 2011

BLOG REVISION: Martyrdom

Question: Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

Upon reading this question, I found myself intrigued by Apple's dictionary of a martyr. As far as I was concerned, and according to the Webster's New Dictionary which was conveniently situated beside my computer, a martyr is "one who chooses to suffer or die for one's faith or principles". I believe that there is a fine line between being giving for the sake of giving and giving to receive. Taking my belief and both of these definitions into account, I strongly find Socrates to be a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs.

Socrates was the kind of guy who believed that an “unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato 45). He committed his whole life to interrogating people as so to teach people to be wise, reasonable and just. But it wasn’t like Socrates was given any kind of golden star for his quest for justice, nor any compensation for the rough road ahead. Trying to prove this to the poets, artisans, and politicians of Athens led him to be tried in court. He was considered to be a "corruptor of youth". He had even lived in poverty and was denied from preaching in public. But this never stopped Socrates from trying to speak the truth anyways. It makes me think: If the idea of martyrdom is so revered, why are the lives of martyrs so inglorious? And under what circumstance does someone receive the title of a “martyr”? I think that it all comes down to perception.
According to Socrates himself, "There is no man who will preserve his life for long, either in Athens or elsewhere, if he firmly opposes the multitude, and tries to prevent the commission of much injustice and illegality in the state"(Plato 38). Suddenly, I’m reminded of the whole Occupy Vancouver/Wall Street dilemma and the kind of controversy that it sparked. Looking at all the tents set up in Downtown Vancouver in the middle of November with all these signs everywhere almost deliberately instigates a reaction to think about how silly it all seems, and how intense these people are. But in a way I admire them because like Socrates, these people are just trying to prove their truth. And evidently, they don’t care what anyone else thinks either at the expense of their reputation. In Socrates’ case, it just happened to be at the expense of his own life.
There are martyrs everywhere in our day to day. There are people who are willing to sacrifice their pride to forgive someone; there are/were soldiers who risk(ed) their lives on the battlefield in the name of their country or religion; there are people who run the risk of being judged if they demonstrate complete conviction in their beliefs (eg. Being openly homosexual). Yet we don’t generally consider these kinds of people to be martyrs because their suffering isn’t always so evident. But I feel like that’s what makes a true martyr—humility. To me, being humble means being accepting; even it means being willing to suffer proudly, and valuing hope over an outcome. And I think that Socrates was the kind of man who did that.

Again, I really feel as if the definition of a martyr all comes down to perception. And my definition of humility could very well be different from someone else’s. But I don’t think that cockiness leads someone to die for what they believe in. It takes someone humble to have the courage to trust that there’s something more to their life than just trying to survive. 

No comments:

Post a Comment