Fighting for Freedom Armed with True Wisdom
A large percentage of Americans are walking the streets seemingly free but shackled by powerful internal and external forces. Many of these people unwittingly follow what feels good, looks good, sounds good, tastes good and smells good. In other words, they’re largely reacting to sensory information without carefully discerning the incoming barrage of rhetoric from many assailants e.g., mainstream media, social media, AI, influencers, podcasters, Hollywood, the political establishment and the loudest and most repeated voice. Many Americans are chasing popularity, comfort, indulgence, recognition, power, company, safety, status, money, immediate gratification and likes. Moreover, rather than engage with those with whom they disagree, most Americans are stuck in silos, judging, criticizing, labeling, making unfounded accusations, enabling each other and gossiping about the folks outside of their bubble. Our culture is reminiscent of 5th century Greece when Socrates took on the corrupt Athenian ruling class, which professed to be a new democracy but turned out to be something different. Will Americans suffer this same fate or learn lessons from Ancient Greek history and/or the Bible?
Socrates was born in Athens, Greece in 469 B.C. to a father, who was a stonemason and mother, a midwife. His family was not part of the aristocracy and would probably be considered middle class in present day America. Socrates had a typical Greek, formal education in a society allegedly transformed from an oligarchy to a “democracy.”
Socrates received vocational training in his father’s craft before he did his compulsory military duty required of all boys turning 18 yr. Socrates was a standout on the battlefield, a theme that would be repeated on other fronts. Socrates fought in heavy infantry in the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta ironically saving the life of a young general who eventually became a prominent statesman and political adversary of Socrates. The war had a second irony for Socrates in that his principles were more aligned with his opponent, the Spartans, who also rejected the imperial ambitions of Athens valuing instead such traits as bravery, integrity, morality, simplicity, perseverance and resoluteness. Little did Socrates know at the time that the true enemy was in his ranks.
Even more consequential in his formation than his parents, wife, his formal education, vocational training, military experience or the ancient Athenian mores, was the counsel he received from an unknown God who like Athens eventually became transparent. More specifically, Socrates was purposed to teach and role model to his fellow Athenians the wisdom of God which included virtue, truth, critical thinking, and the paramount importance of preparing the soul for an afterlife. Incidentally, Socrates described his wife, Xanthippe, as rather strong-minded and argumentative but reframed her temperament as a blessing because she provided him the opportunity to practice his debate skills, patience and resilience.
Having stared down death and completed what he viewed as his mandatory duty for the state, Socrates was free to live his true purpose which was as a dedicated foot soldier for his supreme commander, God.
Socrates’ craft was now a philosopher, truth teller and tireless disciple who engaged all comers including politicians, professionals, students, aristocracy, generals, artists and even craftsmen to assess and challenge their wisdom, principles, spiritual beliefs, and views on democracy. He also clashed with the Sophists, hired guns of the ruling class, who sought to persuade the youth to adhere to the attitudes of the elite using whatever means necessary, e.g., emotional appeals, gaslighting and deceit. Ultimately, Socrates’ goal was to silence the Sophists not out of selfish ambition or self-satisfaction but as a function of his mission. Along this path, Socrates discovered he was smarter than these so-called intellectuals because he understood that it is God who is omniscient, that he “knows nothing” while these men who feigned to know it all, were incapable of learning and thus according to Socrates were actually ignorant.
Socrates’ philosophy and inquiry process was aptly coined the Socratic Method. According to his approach, Socrates believed that by engaging in dialogue in which one continuously questions and challenges premises, people can gain insight and wisdom. The Socratic Method’s critical concept is critical thinking which in essence means defining terms, demonstrating falsehoods or irrational statements, relying on evidence or logical reasoning to confirm or disprove a belief, hypothesis, argument or claim.
Two distinct techniques emerged from this process: the Dialectical Method and the less known Maieutic Method. Dialectic reasoning is based on arguments and counter arguments. The goal is twofold: 1) ask questions that reveal contradictions or inconsistencies in the thinking and arguments of an interlocutor (party with whom one is speaking) and refute arguments to arrive at flaws in logic, 2) to arrive at a clearer understanding of the truth. This process forces the interlocutor to confront assumptions, question his/her beliefs, and adapt his/her reasoning. The second technique, the Maieutic Method (“maieutic” comes from the Greek word for midwifery), likely influenced by his mother who was a midwife, reflects Socrates’ belief that his role was like that of a midwife helping a woman give birth. Rather than giving a direct answer to a question, this method calls for questioning the questions, gently inducing the person to recognize the gaps in his/her thinking. The goal is essentially to help the interlocutor arrive at a deeper understanding of the truth, one that was based on their own deduction and self-discovery.
Accounts also demonstrated that Socrates had a 3-tiered filter for evaluating whether an interlocutor’s statement was worth pursuing: 1) was it true (based on evidence, knowledge, facts), 2) was it good (virtuous or harmful) and 3) was it useful or necessary (would it add value, or lead to self-improvement). Socrates’ approach parallels James’ 3-tiered filter to tame one’s tongue before speaking: 1) is the statement true, 2) is it kind or does it build others up and 3) will the statement glorify God (James 3:17).
Other accounts describe 6 types of questions Socrates would ask his students: 1) conceptual clarification questions (to get students to think critically about the questions they asked), 2) probing assumptions (to encourage students to think about the presuppositions and untested beliefs on which an argument is founded), 3) probing rationale, reasons and evidence (seek support by diving deeper), 4) question viewpoints and perspectives, 5) probe implications and consequences (determining what would be the logical outcome of the argument) and 6) questions about the question (what is the purpose of the question).
Two dialogues utilizing the Socratic Method follow: the first example between a teacher and student.
Student: As Americans, we are fortunate to live in a democracy.
Teacher: What is your definition of a democracy?
Student: A country where citizens are free and have a voice
Teacher: How do you define the terms free and voice?
Student: Free means we have lawful rights, and a voice means we have freedom of speech and the right to vote
Teacher: Are we free if we believe a law is corrupt or unjust? Do we have freedom of speech if a government deems that certain words are deemed unsafe or unlawful? Do we have laws if a government is corrupt?
At this point, it is hard for the student to continue to defend the initial statement. A dialogue between two spouses follows:
Spouse 1: I can’t say anything to you. You’re so sensitive.
Spouse 2: What do you mean by the word anything? Do you know any person who is not sensitive?
Spouse 1: Everything I say bothers you! Other people aren’t as sensitive as you.
Spouse 2: Everything? Can you prove that others are less sensitive than me?
Spouse 1: Anything negative! I see how my friends respond to me and they’re not as touchy as you.
Spouse 2: The other day you commented that I’m grumpy in the AM and I quickly validated your comment. I surely wasn’t bothered or sensitive then. Are there differences between your attitude and level of patience with your friends given the different expectations you have for a friend and a spouse? Are you more motivated to be on your best behavior with a friend and thus have more of a filter given the absolute need to make a positive impression to maintain the relationship? How much time do you spend with your friends compared to how much time you spend with me say in a month’s time, e.g., might you spend 8 - 12 hours with a friend and approximately 200 hours in my company? Do you believe how much exposure you have to someone impacts the quality, amount of intimacy and risk of saying something hurtful?
At this point Spouse 1 would have a difficult time defending their initial position.
In a world teeming with misinformation, corruption, a reliance on emotions, gaslighting, biases, agendas, lust for power, greed, shortcuts, conflicting ideas or ideals, rivalry and cheating the need for an exchange of opposing viewpoints grounded in sound reasoning is critical to both freedom and survival.
Because Socrates opposed the traditional Athenian customs and didn’t make any written account of his philosophy and inquiry methods, he may have been easily dismissed by his detractors if not for the writings of his best student, Plato. Plato preserved Socrates’ legacy by writing 4 dialogues. Coined the Socratic Dialogues, these epic accounts depicted Socrates’ trial and execution. Plato was inspired to write these dialogues because Socrates was Plato’s mentor who he highly esteemed but also because of the tragic nature of criminally charging an innocent man who was simply fighting for truth and justice.
The following are the 4 dialogues: Euthyphro which depicts Socrates awaiting his own trial while questioning Euthyphro about his definition of holiness as Euthyphro believes he is acting holy by trying to have his father sentenced for murder; Apology which portrays Socrates giving an unsuccessful defense of himself at his own trial; Crito which demonstrates Socrates rejecting an offer to escape Athens before his execution and Phaedra which depicts Socrates’ last day on earth discussing the merits of an afterlife where truth and justice prevail and then embracing this afterlife by ingesting Hemlock, a highly toxic plant.
The ruling class provided clear evidence of its own profound fears and immorality by way of lawfare as they arrested Socrates and put him on trial for 1) impiety for believing in a new God and refusing to bow down to the Athenian gods and 2) corrupting the minds of the youth with his “false teachings.” The trial took place outdoors in the center of Athens, with 500 Athenian male citizens (only men could participate in a jury in this era) seated on wooden benches serving as jurors and surrounded by a throng of spectators. There were 3 “accusers” or lawyers representing the state and Socrates defending himself. Both sides had just 3 hours to make their case.
After hearing the arguments of both Socrates and his accusers, each juror rendered his verdict by placing a small disk into an urn marked either “guilty” or “not guilty”. Socrates was found guilty by a vote of 280 to 220. The jurors were then tasked with determining Socrates’ penalty. His accusers argued for the death penalty. Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and while confronting death for the second time in his life, he flippantly replied that he deserved a reward for his actions. When pressed for a straightforward punishment, he proposed that he be fined a pittance. Faced with the two options, the jury opted for the death penalty.
Socrates had two opportunities to avoid the death penalty. First, he could have asked for exile. Secondly, while in prison awaiting trial, his friend, Crito, offered to help Socrates escape by bribing the guards but Socrates refused the offer. Crito visited Socrates in prison approximately 24 hours before Socrates’ death, found him sleeping soundly and upon waking him, to Crito’s astonishment, Socrates appeared calm, peaceful and rested. For several hours, Crito tried everything in his power to persuade Socrates to escape from prison. For instance, he attempted the argument that the sentence was corrupt and unjust, but Socrates refused to change his mind based on purely logical counter arguments. Crito passionately attempted to appeal to Socrates’ emotions by making the case that Socrates would be abandoning his children by accepting a death sentence and that Crito would appear weak to the masses for not being able to persuade Socrates to escape into exile. However, Socrates had dedicated his life to not allowing his emotions to influence him or show any concern for public sentiment, wouldn’t allow this to be the case at the witching hour and thus rebuffed Crito’s pleas.
Socrates refused to go to exile for a number of reasons: 1) he believed that being obedient to God and readying himself and his citizens for the afterlife was his number one priority and felt that by going into exile was equivalent to sentencing himself and others to hell, 2) he was committed to always do what is right and virtuous, 3) he was motivated to protect the reputation of his friends, family and even the state, and 4) he refused to deviate from the integrity of his teachings and principles even when facing the direst consequences. He truly believed if he caved, he would have been viewed as a hypocrite: his philosophy, beliefs and methods would die along with him and future generations of Athenians would likely not be influenced by his teachings.
Plato’s Socratic Dialogues had such a profound impact on Western civilization that they influenced the thought of St. Augustine (AD 354 - 386) and other believers. A few marked examples of the correlation between Socrates’ philosophical/spiritual beliefs and Christian theology are as follows: First, Jesus Christ rebuked the devil, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” when Satan told Jesus to bow before him and tempted Jesus 3 times after Jesus spent 40 days and nights in the desert, e.g., turn stone into bread, demonstrate his majesty by throwing himself down from the highest point of the temple and possession of all the kingdoms of the world. 400 years earlier, Socrates’ worshiped God not any false idols. Second, Socrates was more concerned with living by God’s laws than manmade laws, a position which is consistent with Matthew 10:28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Third, Socrates believed in always doing what is good or right which is another Christian covenant simply put in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 “Abstain from every form of evil.” Did Socrates receive the same guidance from God as did Jesus Christ?
In today’s culture, we largely exist in 2 silos, conservative and liberal, talking with those in the same camps. Half the country would say that the current day Socrates is President Trump who was indicted by the Democrats for his advocacy of common-sense solutions, a meritocracy, liberty, equal opportunity, prosperity, America’s sovereignty, the Constitution or ideals of our founding fathers, justice and the rule of law. In this conservative silo, the majority would suggest Trump has been purposed by God to save the U.S. and perhaps the world, that the left views Trump as threat to the deep state’s grip on our federal institutions and this “underground government” attempted to take Trump off the ballot through lawfare and warfare. Those on the left would say that they represent fairness, equality, the oppressed, poor, minority, working class and that government is the answer to all of our problems. They would also describe Trump as an irrational tyrant who is attempting to take over our “democracy” to protect his wealth and the wealthy as well as seeking revenge on those who challenged his extreme MAGA views.
As was the case in Ancient Greece, our 21st century ruling class has a stronghold over federal institutions, e.g., public education, universities government agencies and this political establishment lord it over us. Many people are too fearful, insecure, arrogant, defeated, avoidant, brainwashed, tired, disillusioned, hopeless or disempowered to engage honestly with the other side.
We need to free ourselves from our echo chambers or self-imposed prisons and take a page from Socrates’ playbook which for conservatives and liberals is to dialogue, question and debate by critically thinking through the issues of the day. Analogous to arm wrestling, the two sides ought to “brain wrestle” and “teammates” ought to contract to collaborate with his/her “teammate” who has the most clever and creative ideas. However, such a plan still requires three traits that Socrates espoused: ethics, common sense and a belief in God.
Perhaps, we ought to use the brain itself as a metaphor for navigating the two political spectrums. The brain has two hemispheres: ironically the left side of the brain is the logical side, and the right side is the creative or feelings side. Either way the brain allows us to access both hemispheres, which is exactly what the two sides of the political equation ought to be doing. However, before collaborating with someone from a different perspective, individuals ought to first synthesize ideas from both the logical and creative side of his/her own brain. Second, we need to engage the other team grounded in a balanced mindset, with humility, curiosity, a growth mindset, without preconceived solutions, asking open-ended questions, objectively listening to answers and having the courage to validate what is sensible or rational.
The lessons from Socrates’ life and death are profound and consequential. The Athenian ruling class was dead wrong to declare Socrates’ beliefs as hostile because in fact as Socrates proclaimed, his wisdom and mission was informed by God. Socrates was a martyr whose death breathed life into the critical need for critical thinking and belief in God which are the final bastions against tyranny, corruption, hedonism, nihilism and ultimately evil. According to Socrates, the key to breaking out of the chains of hell on earth is captured by the following quote: “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Over 400 years after Socrates’ death, Solomon, whose legacy is his divine wisdom, was granted by God “a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be (Kings 3:12). Solomon went on to write in Proverbs very similar sentiments as Socrates about wisdom and ignorance: “The fool despises wisdom and discipline, often making poor choices and rejecting knowledge” (Proverbs 1:5). “The wise are those who seek knowledge and understanding, heeding instruction and growing in wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7). Like Socrates, Solomon connects wisdom to the soul in Proverbs 24:14: “Know that wisdom is such to your soul; if you find it, there will be a future, and your hope will not be cut off.” Based on these incredible parallels, one might conclude that Socrates and Solomon were guided by the same God. A final indication of the similarities between Socrates and biblical figures is the martyrdom of Socrates and the Son of God, Jesus Christ, both of whom chose Godly wisdom throughout their earthly lives including at the end. While speaking to his disciples shortly before his death on the cross, Jesus Christ encapsulates the paradoxical concept of the freedom in living a self-sacrificial, purpose filled life: “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.” (Matthew 16:25).
Socrates* is surely remembered as the father of the Socratic Method but his supernatural wisdom was demonstrated in choosing freedom as a prisoner of God.
*Please note that the historical information regarding Socrates’ life was mined from many sources on the web