Compliance: Abundance vs. Scarcity

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 a man who believed that an “unexamined life is not worth living” (45). He committed his whole life to interrogating people to filter out the truth in their statements as so to teach people to be wise, reasonable and just. He did this because he said that he was once given an oracle by Chaerephon, the god of Delphi, that he was the wisest of men. Trying to prove this to the poets, artisans, and politicians of Athens wasn’t beneficial to him since it jeopardized his relationship with the state. It wasn’t like Socrates benefited financially from these cross-examinations either because he lived in poverty even until the time of his death. He was also considered to be a corruptor of youth. “Corruptor of youth”… Ouch. If obtaining sympathy or admiration was the objective, Socrates clearly wasn’t successful.

Socrates also recognized that his ideas to promote justice didn’t always sit well with the majority. 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"(38). Knowing that his life was at stake while continuing to refute others for the sake of proving what is just exemplifies that Socrates valued the truth over other’s opinions of him. Furthermore, he valued the truth at the expense of his own life. What a guy.

 The biggest reason I believe that Socrates can be defined as someone convicted in his own beliefs even to the point of death is because of his eagerness to accept his verdict by the law. Socrates had the option to renounce his beliefs or even submit to exile, but he declined out of integrity. He even refused Crito’s offer to help him escape out of prison just prior to his execution. Although he knew that he wasn’t guilty of his charges, he accepted his fate with understanding; understanding that he must always stand by what is just and that perhaps the gods had a better plan for him in the after-life.

Socrates remained an advocate of justice and true wisdom until the last seconds and at the expense of his life. He was the kind of man that expressed no discomfort or distress and sought no consolation in saying that “to fear death… is only to think ourselves wise without really being wise, for it is to think that we know what we do not know” (35).