Apology by Plato (Topic 1)

Apology by Plato (Topic 1)

In Apology by Plato, the author uses the philosopher Socrates to make several claims about what it means to be "good," as well as about life, death, and what might be expected after death. What makes this work interesting in the context of other Plato works featuring Socrates is that the philosopher encounters some legal trouble, being accused of various effects of his words on the youth and society. In other works, Socrates has his critics and opponents, but none have desired to submit him to the death penalty. This adds a rich dimension to work, in which Socrates uses great eloquence to rebut the accusations against him. This, however, has no effect on the death penalty decision imposed by the judges and the work ends in Socrates' death. Nevertheless, towards the end of the work, as he considers his fate, Socrates makes the remarkable statement that no harm can come to a good man "either in life or after death." While my inclination is to agree with this statement, it would be useful to first consider the background against which Socrates makes this statement. Further arguments can then be made regarding the statement and possible opposition to it.

Socrates' words appear remarkable in the context of general life, where good and bad things happen to both good and bad people. I do not believe, however, that Socrates meant it outside of the context of perception. Because he considers himself to be "good" or "righteous" as he puts it, Socrates does not believe anything happens to him which is not meant to happen. Hence, he accepts the penalty against him without complaint. For him, it is good, since he is already advanced in years and therefore did not have long to live in either regard.

Another context that Socrates considers in terms of the "good" he expects is the afterlife. The philosopher considers two possibilities: First, that there could be eternal oblivion, which is like endless sleep. In this case, Socrates considers the possibility good, since it would provide reprieve from the difficulties and stress of life. It would be like eternal rest, unplagued by even the consciousness of dreams. A second possibility is that there is an afterlife populated by gods and the souls of the departed. This, also, would be good for Socrates, since his inner righteousness would earn him the favor of the gods. When arriving in such an afterlife, the philosopher would also be happy, since he would have the opportunity to continue his conversations and philosophical musings.

In the context of all the above, any outcome would hold good for the philosopher. Remaining alive would have given him a few more years. Dying will open the door to either eternal rest or eternal interesting conversations with great souls. There is no possibility for harm, although Socrates does acknowledge that his accusers certainly meant to harm him. They cannot, however, because Socrates is good.

As mentioned above, my inclination is to agree with the philosopher. Although in the conventional sentence death is far from desirable and can constitute significant harm, Socrates' perception goes beyond the immediate physical reality of his existence. His foundation is his own "righteousness." The fact that he is good, according to the philosopher, protects him from any attempts at harming him.

Socrates uses his perception to impose the idea of good on what happens to him. In other words, he looks for the good even in the fact that his life is in immediate danger. It is as if the inner good he believes to lie in his heart also reflects outwards, towards the situations he encounters. Socrates' supreme faith in his own goodness also feeds his faith in the basic goodness of the world and life around him, in which even basically evil people like his accusers serve as instruments of good.

What makes this argument particularly strong for me is that it echoes some of the philosophies about good and the world today. One example of this is what has become known as "the law of attraction," which constitutes that whatever a person believes about the world and how it works is what will be true for that person. When applied to Socrates' situation, his faith in good is what fuels his reality; that everything is good, that he is good, and that he cannot be harmed. Many have used this belief system to create happier lives and worlds for themselves and their families.

Of course, one must also acknowledge that not everybody would be in agreement about this viewpoint. An opponent might say, for example, that it is impossible to claim that good people cannot be harmed. Both good and bad people are harmed every day. Accidents, terrorist attacks, illness, and other random events cause harm to people on a daily basis, without any apparent context or reason. While it is well and good for Socrates to say that he cannot be harmed, his neat little solution to life, death, and what is done to him is easy. Today, however, we do not have the luxury of imposing a philosophical sense of "good" on things like cancer, young children losing their mother in a terrorist attack, or parents losing their children in accidents. These things are harmful. There is no philosophy or attraction law that can change that.

Another point of disagreement could be the idea of "good," especially when considered from the personal perspective. In Plato's day, philosophers took a lot of time to work out the nature of "good," the "good life" and what it means to be "righteous." Today, these concepts are far more complex than in Socrates' day. Indeed, Socrates and his friends had the luxury of living in a relatively homogeneous world, where everybody had more or less the same ideas about good, evil, how life should work, and so on. Today, we have communications technology that put us into immediate contact with everyone else in the world. While we are all human, we have such vastly different cultural, religious, and historical backgrounds that this often also means that we have vastly different value systems. A simple thing like a hug can mean friendship in one culture but something far more intense in another. Not all of us have the same ideas about what it is to be good and do good. While most people's sense of "good" relates to promoting life and protection in some way, the specific ways in which this is manifest differ greatly. A person who is a religious fanatic, for example, might consider it good to convince the entire world that it is going to hell unless everybody's belief system is the same as his, for example. For another, more open-minded person, this is the epitome of evil in a world that should promote religious freedom and equal rights. The same is true for other equal rights debates: the right to have an abortion, the right of homosexual people to marry each other, and so on.

Hence, in this quagmire of very different opinions and world views, how do we identify a person a is "good?" There is no single static definition that applies to everyone. So, in addition to the general harms that come to all people, nobody can say today that any of the victims of such harms is purely "good" or "evil" in any perceived context of that idea. In the light of these arguments, one can say that Socrates' arguments are no longer valid for today. First, harm comes to everyone, and second, people all have some good components and some less desirable ones. At the same time, some ideas of "good" are "evil" from a different cultural or philosophical perspective. Socrates' arguments are far too simplistic to apply to the context of the world and life we have today.

In responding to these arguments, I would start with the obvious. The works of Plato are still read today, so clearly at least some readers still find some of the ideas in the works relevant to their context today. However, this is not a very strong rebuttal to the legitimate oppositions listed above, so I would follow by addressing each opposing viewpoint in turn.

First, I would address the idea of harm. While it is true that what the opponent terms

"harm" comes to everyone, the perception of such harm can be modified in such a way as to create some sense of good. A person who has lost a child, for example, can adopt another. There are two types of good that come from this: A child receives a loving home, and a parent receives the opportunity to nurture a new recipient of disappointed love and hence achieves healing. In the case of cancer, the victim has the opportunity to say goodbye to family and friends and make sure that his or her affairs are in order. Hence, the harm is less than it would have been had the person been killed in an accident, for example. In short, everything depends upon perception. Clearly, some forms of calamity are worse than others. And there is no denying that harm is perceived, especially immediately following bad news. However, one does have control over one's reactions to these events, which I think is what Socrates' idea of "good" should mean to us today.

Socrates is able to see the good in everything that happens to him, because, in his view, he is "righteous." To develop this idea further, it is useful to consider Plato's explication of what exactly righteousness means to Socrates. In addition to treating others well and attempting to do good as far as possible, Plato sees righteousness as integrity. Socrates understands that his penalty is based basically on resentment. He maintains his sense of integrity and calmly clings to his philosophy regardless of the judges' wish to see him squirm. Socrates claims that such squirming might have gained him a few more years of life, but would have cost his integrity. This would have harmed in. In this sense, Socrates could have harmed himself by departing from his own sense of integrity. He chooses not to do this, and is therefore immune from harm by others.