John Nelson
Moderate Democrat
February 19, 2007
Fellow Athenians, the case before us today is that of Socrates. Here is a man who for the past two decades has been leading our youth astray. Instead of reaffirming the superiority of Athenian democracy, he has proposed that we should all be led by a select few, who he refers to as “philosopher kings” (Republic 473d). Not only is he a dangerous opponent of our glorious democracy, he is a thoroughly impious man.
Now, for purposes of clarity and accuracy, I think it best if I define what I mean by the term ‘impious’, because the last thing I want to do is to convict a man of an offense which he did not commit. Rest assured men of Athens, he is guilty of impiety. I can see it now in my esteemed opponent’s eyes that he is amused that the charges of impiety have been brought against him today. He is no doubt unaware of the definition of impiety by which we now hold him accountable. He would certainly say that he believes in the gods, and therefore is surely a pious man. In fact, I have heard from his own lips that he is ordained to teach his philosophy in Athens by the Oracle at Delphi, which he heard indirectly from his friend Chaerephon. Furthermore, Socrates has said that the Oracle says that he is the wisest man on Earth (Apology). I am not here to refute this claim since I am not a priest or a soothsayer, but I bring it up so as to show his ‘evidence’ against the charges currently brought against him. His defense may work for an inaccurate definition of impiety, but not for the definition the prosecution proposes. At this time I wish to clearly explain what the prosecution means by ‘impiety’. Impiety is a lack of reverence to the gods and religious practices of the polis. In light of this definition, we hold Socrates to be guilty.
Socrates has suggested that our youth be taught only certain instances of the gods, as opposed to the entire story which all of us have been taught (Republic 386a). Who does he think he is to teach that we should censor the encounters of the gods? What kind of message are we sending to the youth if we intercept the tales of the gods? Our youth must hear the entire detailed accounts of the gods in order to understand the true nature of our gods, in whom our destinies rely on their immortal favor.
In another instance we have all heard him introduce a new deity, Love (Symposium). Socrates has no authority to deify an emotion. Are we to now pray to Love and hold festivals in his honor because Socrates says he’s among the immortals? Absolutely not! He has added this new one to our sacred Pantheon, and he has not yet suffered any repercussions for his blasphemy. I can see his defense to this charge forming in his head right now. He would say it was not his idea to deify Love, but rather Diotima’s. This may be the case, but her blasphemy which she whispered to him in private he is now teaching in the home of Athenians. We need to convict this man before he spreads any more of his venomous lies.
Surely we can agree that he is guilty of impiety, and this calls for conviction. Now as far as sentencing is concerned, I feel that his execution is too drastic a measure and will probably polarize our polis. We have no intention to make him a martyr, for his followers will have an inflated figurehead to rally around as they spread his blasphemous teachings. Instead the prosecution proposes to exile him to Thebes for twenty years. We need to get him out of our celebrated polis, where we value piety above all else.
Moderate Democrat
February 19, 2007
Fellow Athenians, the case before us today is that of Socrates. Here is a man who for the past two decades has been leading our youth astray. Instead of reaffirming the superiority of Athenian democracy, he has proposed that we should all be led by a select few, who he refers to as “philosopher kings” (Republic 473d). Not only is he a dangerous opponent of our glorious democracy, he is a thoroughly impious man.
Now, for purposes of clarity and accuracy, I think it best if I define what I mean by the term ‘impious’, because the last thing I want to do is to convict a man of an offense which he did not commit. Rest assured men of Athens, he is guilty of impiety. I can see it now in my esteemed opponent’s eyes that he is amused that the charges of impiety have been brought against him today. He is no doubt unaware of the definition of impiety by which we now hold him accountable. He would certainly say that he believes in the gods, and therefore is surely a pious man. In fact, I have heard from his own lips that he is ordained to teach his philosophy in Athens by the Oracle at Delphi, which he heard indirectly from his friend Chaerephon. Furthermore, Socrates has said that the Oracle says that he is the wisest man on Earth (Apology). I am not here to refute this claim since I am not a priest or a soothsayer, but I bring it up so as to show his ‘evidence’ against the charges currently brought against him. His defense may work for an inaccurate definition of impiety, but not for the definition the prosecution proposes. At this time I wish to clearly explain what the prosecution means by ‘impiety’. Impiety is a lack of reverence to the gods and religious practices of the polis. In light of this definition, we hold Socrates to be guilty.
Socrates has suggested that our youth be taught only certain instances of the gods, as opposed to the entire story which all of us have been taught (Republic 386a). Who does he think he is to teach that we should censor the encounters of the gods? What kind of message are we sending to the youth if we intercept the tales of the gods? Our youth must hear the entire detailed accounts of the gods in order to understand the true nature of our gods, in whom our destinies rely on their immortal favor.
In another instance we have all heard him introduce a new deity, Love (Symposium). Socrates has no authority to deify an emotion. Are we to now pray to Love and hold festivals in his honor because Socrates says he’s among the immortals? Absolutely not! He has added this new one to our sacred Pantheon, and he has not yet suffered any repercussions for his blasphemy. I can see his defense to this charge forming in his head right now. He would say it was not his idea to deify Love, but rather Diotima’s. This may be the case, but her blasphemy which she whispered to him in private he is now teaching in the home of Athenians. We need to convict this man before he spreads any more of his venomous lies.
Surely we can agree that he is guilty of impiety, and this calls for conviction. Now as far as sentencing is concerned, I feel that his execution is too drastic a measure and will probably polarize our polis. We have no intention to make him a martyr, for his followers will have an inflated figurehead to rally around as they spread his blasphemous teachings. Instead the prosecution proposes to exile him to Thebes for twenty years. We need to get him out of our celebrated polis, where we value piety above all else.
posted by John Nelson | 9:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home