The Hypothetical Actions of Socrates and Descartes

 

When faced with any decision, there is often an opportunity to choose right and wrong.  However, sometimes the choice of right and wrong is blurred by one’s past actions and beliefs, obscuring the consistent stream of decisions made up until a recent choice.  Those who choose to remain consistent without any regard to the present situation affected by a choice may have given up a relationship to humanity and society.  This is the case with Euthyphro, Socrates, and Descartes.  In Plato’s work, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Euthyphro chooses to keep his principles and sacrifice his father’s life, just as Socrates would have done if he was in that position.  This appears to be true because Socrates sacrificed his life for his principles and believed death was not a bad thing.  Descartes’ commitments show that he would not have sided with Socrates in this situation because of his idea of indubitability in his work Meditations of first Philosophy. 

            Socrates sacrificed his life for his principles, just as Euthyphro sacrificed his father’s life for his principles, because they both were consistent in their decisions and passively allowed death to happen.  In Plato’s work The Trial and Death of Socrates Euthyphro said, “I say that the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer…whether the wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else; not to prosecute is impious” (Plato 6).  This statement is an admittance of consistency, or a hope of future consistency, in Euthyphro’s belief in what is pious or impious.  There is no evidence in this statement to support the past actions of Euthyphro’s decision making, but it is an affirmation that from that point on, he will consistently decide to act on what he feels is impious.  The reader never finds out if Euthyphro went through with the trial and definitely had his father killed, but the assumption that this is what happened is a strong one from this statement.  Socrates showed his curiosity in Euthyphro’s idea of consistency when he said, “Come, try to show me a clear sign that all the gods definitely believe this action to be right” (Plato 10).  Socrates is looking for a consistency of what is pious or impious, and that Euthyphro’s decision to have his father killed is the right thing to do in the eyes of the gods.  This is nearly impossible to prove, as Socrates demonstrated when he talked circles around Euthyphro.  This quest for consistency leads both of these men to a standoff with death.  Socrates died over the consistency of things being inconsistent, and Euthyphro killed over the consistency of his poor example of piety.  However, in this situation Socrates would have done the same thing Euthyphro did for the sake of consistency. 

            The rigidity of this situation is extremely pressing.  The negotiations that took place to save the lives of Socrates and Euthyphro’s father were passive.  The reader never hears about the negotiation Euthyphro had with his father over his prosecution, but does hear the negotiation between Socrates and his prosecutors.  Socrates said, “Do you think I would have survived all these years if I were engaged in public affairs and, acting as a good man must, came to the help of justice and considered this the most important thing?  Far from it, men of Athens, nor would any other man” (Plato 35).  Socrates essentially admitted to hiding away for years to save his life because of what he believed in.  One cannot help thinking there is a difference in fighting for what one believes in and dying for what one believes in.  If Socrates were fighting for his beliefs, he would have been an actively aggressive presence within the leadership of Athens.  Yet it took Athens his whole lifespan to allow Socrates to die for his beliefs.  Socrates seems to be patiently waiting to die over something in which he never even put up a fight.  It is one thing to say words in one’s defense, but it is another to act in one’s defense.  Euthyphro puts his father in a similar situation.  Euthyphro said, “I think, Socrates, that on this subject no gods would differ from one another, that whoever has killed anyone unjustly should pay the penalty” (Plato 9).  This statement is complex in that Euthyphro is not a god, therefore has no jurisdiction to decide whether his father should be killed or not.  The only thing he can do is think about what the gods might believe to be pious and act in that way.  Euthyphro does not really have the right to sacrifice another man’s life over what he believes.  Socrates sacrifices his own life, which is his to decide with what he wants to do, but Euthyphro takes another man’s life, essentially making him a murderer.  The irony in this scene is that Euthyphro is killing someone for killing. 

            Socrates would have done the same thing because both these men believe in the power of principle.  Socrates said, “Some assert that they wrong one another, while others deny it, but no one among gods or men ventures to say that the wrongdoer must not be punished” (Plato 10).  Socrates meant that all beings believe wrongdoers must be punished for their actions.  It is not a question of who wronged who, but that someone must pay for a misdeed.  This conclusion is almost juvenile in its assumption because it is declaring punishment a necessity.  Instead of a corrective approach, punishment is the approach.  This can cause major issues within families, such as in Euthyphro’s case, because he killed his own father, his mother’s husband, and many other familial relationships.  People are more than just a single entity, and are always connected in webs of relationships and feelings.  By cutting the ties to his father, Euthyphro created a broken home and isolated himself.  Socrates loved the idea of controversy to learn and relate ideas, so his actions would have mirrored Euthyphro’s.  Socrates would have sacrificed his father’s life for his principles like Euthyphro and also believed that death was not a bad thing.

            In a general and primal sense, death is a situation that humans try to avoid.  However, Socrates believed that death was not a bad thing.  Socrates said, “Let us reflect in this way, too, that there is good hope that death is a blessing…If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage” (Plato 41).  Socrates is curious to see what lies beyond the grave.  Thinking in this mindset, the idea of sending relatives to death is similar to sending them to bed.  Therefore, Euthyphro prosecuting his father is not as horrific to Socrates as it is to the reader.  Still, death is not a science experiment to be fooled with because once a decision is made, it cannot be retracted.  If Socrates were in the same position as Euthyphro with his father’s life on the line, Socrates would have him killed based on his principles as well as the idea that he is not really going to be killed, just moved on to another place.  Yet, think if entire populations of people held this idea.  People would commit mass suicide or mass murder in the attempt to make it to the next level.  It is a unique idea generated by a unique man.  That is why Socrates would have acted in the same way Euthyphro did, out of his unconventional idea that death is not so bad.  Socrates would have done the same thing as Euthyphro, while Descartes would not have sided with Socrates because of his idea of indubitability. 

            Given Descartes commitments, he would not have sided with Socrates because his idea of indubitability in his work Meditations on First Philosophy.  Without a doubt, Descartes would have wanted to know that Socrates was making the most truthful and accurate decision.  Descartes wrote, “But reason now persuades me that I should withhold my assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable than I would from those that are patently false” (Descartes 13).  Descartes was not even sure if he was living in a dream or not, so to place another man’s life in his hands would require a high standard of evidence and complete certainty for Descartes to act.  He would want to know for certain his actions were correct, but oftentimes that is an impossible task.  That is why the criminal court systems in the United States of America prosecute people to a level of beyond reasonable doubt, which is admittance that nothing can be one hundred percent accurate.  Descartes wrote, “However, I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once” (Descartes 14).  Descartes was talking about how there is no way to prove that a person is not living in a dream, and that human senses can be misleading.  This could also be related to authority figures.  Authority figures that deceive people once are never to be trusted again.  Therefore, by Socrates falling into the role of the victim by the authority figures of Athens, there is no way Descartes would have agreed with what Socrates and Euthyphro were doing because of the idea that authority figures cannot be trusted. 

            However, Descartes believed in a god.  Descartes wrote, “I understand by the name “God” a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and that created me along with everything else that exists – if anything else exists” (Descartes 30).  He wrote of the infinite, and thought of the infinite after death.  Once again, to prove such a concept is nearly impossible, but since the idea was generated by a human, it is enough evidence to contemplate its existence.  The belief of the afterlife by Socrates and Descartes may be similar, but the way in which one gets to the afterlife would be disputed by the two men.  Descartes would not have sided with Socrates and Euthyphro because of the idea of indubitabilty.

            In life, decisions will always present themselves, perhaps even in ways that are too difficult to understand.  In Plato’s work, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Euthyphro chooses to keep his principles and sacrifice his father’s life, just as Socrates would have done if he was in that position.  Descartes’ commitments show that he would not have sided with Socrates in this situation because of his idea of indubitability in his work Meditations of first Philosophy.  Sometimes when one is faced with a decision, the only thing to do is go with one’s gut.  As humans, there is not much a person can do to control the universe.  It is always best to do what one feels is the right thing to do, because it is all we can do. 

Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. 3rd ed.             Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 1993. Print.

Plato. The Trial and Death of Socrates. Trans. G. M. Grube. Ed. John M. Cooper. 3rd ed.                    Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 2000. Print.

Image

Three Fight Scenes from Beowulf

 

In any great story of heroics, fight scenes often determine whether the fighter will become a hero or fall a victim in the eyes of society.  In the story Beowulf, the three major fight scenes with Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon differ from one another because they all represent different ethical values of Anglo-Saxon society.  The fight with Grendel represents vengence, the fight with Grendel’s mother represents blood vengeance, and the fight with the dragon represents facing death with courage and dealing with fate.

           The fight between Beowulf and Grendel represents vengeance because Grendel is avenging his curse by God to live as a demon for killing his brother Able.  The text introduces Grendel by stating, “Then a powerful demon, a prowler through the dark, nursed a hard grievance” (Beowulf 42, 86-87).  The “hard grievance” is the curse that God dealt to Cain for the murder of Able that changed Cain into a monster.  An ethical value from Anglo-Saxon society in this fight is revenge, for Grendel is taking revenge on God’s people for his curse.  Later the text states, “For the killing of Abel the Eternal Lord had exacted a price:  Cain got no good from committing that murder” (Beowulf 44, 107-109).  God took revenge on Cain, Grendel took revenge on the people of Heorot, and Beowulf avenged the people of Heorot by defeating Grendel.  This linear module of revenge and avenging continues with the fight with Grendel’s mother.

            The fight with Grendel’s mother represents blood vengeance, also known as wergild, because Grendel’s mother is avenging the death of her son.  The text states, “But now his mother had sallied forth on a savage journey, grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge” (Beowulf 69, 1276-1278).  In Anglo-Saxon society, avenging the death of one’s kin is a major ethical value.  Not only is Grendel’s mother avenging the death of her son, Beowulf and his men are avenging the death of a respected man she killed in Heorot, Aeschere.  The text states “He died in battle, paid with his life; and now this powerful other one arrives, this force for evil driven to avenge her kinsman’s death” (Beowulf 71, 1337-1340).  Beowulf kills Grendel’s mother the same way she killed Aeschere, by cutting her head off (Beowulf 76).  This settles the score of the feud for a while, but the fight with the dragon determines the last battle of ethics.

           The last fight in the text, the fight with the dragon, represents the honor of facing death with courage and fate because Beowulf accepts his death and does not run from his enemy.  Beowulf states, “I shall win the gold by my courage, or else mortal combat, doom of battle, will bear you lord away” (Beowulf 95, 2535-2537).  Beowulf is stating a fact that he will not surrender until he is killed in battle.  The Anglo-Saxon value of courage in the face of death is evident in this statement and in the rest of the passage when Beowulf is deserted by his men and is standing alone in battle with the dragon (Beowulf 96).  Fate is also an Anglo-Saxon ethical value, and is evident in the statement, “…that final day was the first time when Beowulf fought and fate denied him glory in battle” (Beowulf 96, 2573-2575).   This phrase determines that there is a larger force working in Beowulf than just his will, but that he had no choice in preserving his life because fate was determining the fall of events. 

            Great heroes are often remembered for their strength in the face of an adversary and their selflessness to a noble cause, especially at the expense of death.  The three major fight scenes in the story Beowulf differ from one another because they all represent different ethical values of Anglo-Saxon society; vengeance, blood vengeance, and fate.  Beowulf represents an ideal hero of Anglo-Saxon society because of his noble traits.  Humans have always looked to heroes for inspiration in their lives, and it is with great stories that humans can find it within themselves to accomplish great deeds.

 

 

Image

Text

Les Miserables performs at the Academy of Music

The street in front of the Academy of Music in Philadelphia was flooded with theater goers January 5 awaiting the ushers to allow entrance to see The 25th Anniversary Production of Les Miserables produced by Cameron Mackintosh.

The nearly sold out show kicked off with the orchestra playing the haunting overture as the curtain rose on the set inspired by Victor Hugo's paintings, according to the Showcase program bulletin.

Jean Valjean, played by Peter Lockyer, literally kept the audience on the edge of their seats with his talent, causing them to  lean towards the stage to catch every word and note.

Lockyer's most memorable musical number was "Bring Him Home," which is a true test of all who play the character Jean Valjean because of the intense octave jumps.  Lockyer performed the song with believable emotion and perfect pitch.

Andrew Varela played a fantastic Javert and captured the essence of the sinister and intimidating inspector on stage.  Varela's rendition of the musical number "Javert's Suicide" magnified the struggle of how challenging it can be for a person to change and was performed masterfully.

Fantine was played by Genevieve Leclerc in which the performance of "Fantine's Death" brought the audience to tears when she called for her daughter, Cosette, who was not with her in her hour of death.

The Thenardiers', played by Timothy Gulan and Shawna M. Hamic, brought comic relief to a musical steeped in tragedy and received hearty laughs from the audience.  "The Bargain," the musical number in which Jean Valjean adopted the young Cosette from the Thenardiers' was performed with wit and nicely demonstrated the characters ignorance, especially when Thenadier intended to cross himself in the christian manner and instead of a cross pantomimes a circle.

Cosette, Marius, and Eponine, played by Lauren Wiley, Devin Ilaw, and Briana Carlson-Goodman, offered believable chemistry in the love triangle that they portrayed, particularly in the song "A Heart Full of Love".  The layering of voices as well as the staging with Marius and Cosette singing to each other, as Eponine sang to Marius captured the tragic realization of Eponine being the "third wheel."

Ilaw sang Marius's song "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" with such conviction the audience openly wept, especially when his friends which died in the barricade appeared onstage holding candles to represent their passing over to death.

The finale musical number, sang by the company, was a breathtaking moment which ended the show with the moral that, "to love another person is to see the face of God," which led the audience to give a standing ovation.

Les Miserables will play at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia until January 13 and will continue the United States tour until June 9, 2013.  

Image

Robin Hood: Will o' th' Green's Influence

Oftentimes one that starts something has it finished by another, resulting in the loss of remembrance of the originator. This happens in the story Robin Hood, by Paul Creswick, when Will o' th' Green forms the band of renegade greenwood men who take from the rich and give to the poor, while Robin Hood is the one remembered for the efforts.

The creation of the greenwood men starts with a motive of Will, as the story is written, "[Robin] asked many questions concerning Master Will; and learned that he had been outlawed by Henry himself for the accidental slaying of a younger brother in a quarrel years since.  Before that he had been a dutiful and loyal subject, and there were some who vowed that Master Will was as loyal now as many of Henry's barons."

This information is crucial to understanding the motive behind Will's choices concerning the forming of the band, for being outlawed creates a desire for Will to form a new judicial system that fits his ideas of justice and equality.  

Robin's first impression of Will was of civility in his speech, and skill of his bow.  Robin barters with Will to let him "shoot for the freedom of the forest,"and Will agrees, which shows his open mindedness.  However, Will outshoots Robin with his arrows tipped with peacock feathers, and forever captures the loyalty of Robin.  

Will has a habit of entering archery competitions in disguise where he runs into Robin again and saves his life from the wrongful conviction by the judicial system of the authorities.  It is written, "On this occasion [the greenwood men] appeared as friends, however, and welcome ones to boot..."  Will also took a prisoner and in the judging of what to do with him said, "Every one is judged here in fairness."  This shows that the company was not naturally violent, but of a higher order trying to uphold the fairness of justice.

Robin takes all the doings of Will to heart and comes to his aid in battle, which ended with the death of Will.  Will's dying wish is that the company shall, "Be not robbers to any who are poor and who are good fellows - having only their poverty against them.  Be kind to those who help you, but exact toll as heretofore of all who come through the greenwood.  The rich to pay in money, and blood - if it be necessary."

This is the famous mantra that Will lived his life to fulfill and passed onto Robin.  Soon afterwards, Robin is elected to the head of the greenwood men where he practices the teachings of Will throughout his life.  

Yet Will o' th' Green appears to be a lost hero, living on only through his disciple, Robin, after death, and no longer remembered by readers.  After all, Will was the master who started it all, and Robin the pupil who absorbed it.  However the teachings of Will, whether remembered from him or Robin, shall always be contemplated.  It is all in fairness of credit owed that Will shall be remembered.  

A Christmas Carol: Jacob Marley the ultimate servant

A Christmas Carol, written by Charles Dickens, is a story full of relatable characters full of insight of 19th century England.  For those who know the story, one such character is Ebenezer Scrooge's deceased business partner, Jacob Marley, who is the ultimate friend and servant to Scrooge.

Marley is unlike the rest of the characters who find solace at the end of the story, for he is destined to spend the rest of eternity wandering the world as a chained phantom as punishment for his selfishness and greed in life.  Marley comes to Scrooge as a phantom and tries desperately to warn his business partner to change his ways or he will end up a chained phantom as well saying, "You have labored on [your chain] since.  It is a ponderous chain!"

One of Marley's first hints of forthcoming to Scrooge begins with the ringing of a bell.  As the story is written, "[Scrooge] threw his head back in the chair, his glance happened to rest upon a bell, a disused bell, that hung in the room, and communicated for some purpose now forgotten with a chamber in the highest story of the building."

This quote is key because it suggests the coming of a servant of a higher power, one of another world; the phantom of Marley.  For the bell's intention in the house was for it to be rung when a servant was called upon, and in this case, Marley appears soon after.

As Marley foretells of the coming of three spirits, and Scrooge embarks on his journey of reform, one must wonder what will happen to his loyal servant, Jacob Marley?

After all, Marley's loyalty spans beyond life into his death when he says, "I have sat invisible beside you many and many a day."  One would hope that such loyalty would be rewarded with an appeasement of his suffering.

As with many conditions in life, Marley's character perhaps serves as a brutally honest mirror to the human race, especially when he says, "Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life's opportunities misused!"

Still, Marley serves his purpose to this day, causing readers of A Christmas Carol to reflect on their own lives and heed the warning of the consequences of "life's opportunities misused."


Dover Thrift Editions: A Christmas Carol
Image from BBC