History’s First Rainbow Political Execution?

Socrates … took occasion of the presence of a whole company and of Euthydemus to remark that Critias appeared to be suffering from a swinish affection, or else why this desire to rub himself against Euthydemus like a herd of piglings scraping against stones. The hatred of Critias to Socrates doubtless dates from this incident. He treasured it up against him, and afterwards, when he was one of the Thirty [Tyrants] … he framed the law against teaching the art of words merely from a desire to vilify Socrates. He was at a loss to know how else to lay hold of him except by levelling against him the vulgar charge against philosophers, by which he hoped to prejudice him with the public.

THE MEMORABILIA Recollections of Socrates – By Xenophon – Translated by H. G. Dakyns

The two men who wrought the greatest evils to the state at any time—to wit, Critias and Alcibiades—were both companions of Socrates—Critias the oligarch, and Alcibiades the democrat. Where would you find a more arrant thief, savage, and murderer than the one? where such a portent of insolence, incontinence, and high-handedness as the other?

Critias and Alcibiades

Never were two more ambitious citizens seen at Athens. Ambition was in their blood. If they were to have their will, all power was to be in their hands; their fame was to eclipse all other. Of Socrates they knew—first that he lived an absolutely independent life on the scantiest means; next that he was self-disciplined to the last degree in respect of pleasures; lastly that he was so formidable in debate that there was no antagonist he could not twist round his little finger. Such being their views, and such the character of the pair, which is the more probable: that they sought the society of Socrates because they felt the fascination of his life, and were attracted by the bearing of the man? or because they thought, if only we are leagued with him we shall become adepts in statecraft and unrivalled in the arts of speech and action? For my part I believe that if the choice from Heaven had been given them to live such a life as they saw Socrates living to its close, or to die, they would both have chosen death.

Their acts are a conclusive witness to their characters. They no sooner felt themselves to be the masters of those they came in contact with than they sprang aside from Socrates and plunged into that whirl of politics but for which they might never have sought his society.

It may be objected: before giving his companions lessons in politics Socrates had better have taught them sobriety. Without disputing the principle, I would point out that a teacher cannot fail to discover to his pupils his method of carrying out his own precepts, and this along with argumentative encouragement. Now I know that Socrates disclosed himself to his companions as a beautiful and noble being, who would reason and debate with them concerning virtue and other human interests in the noblest manner. And of these two I know that as long as they were companions of Socrates even they were temperate, not assuredly from fear of being fined or beaten by Socrates, but because they were persuaded for the nonce of the excellence of such conduct.

Perhaps some self-styled philosophers may here answer: “Nay, the man truly just can never become unjust, the temperate man can never become intemperate, the man who has learnt any subject of knowledge can never be as though he had learnt it not.” That, however, is not my own conclusion. It is with the workings of the soul as with those of the body; want of exercise of the organ leads to inability of function, here bodily, there spiritual, so that we can neither do the things that we should nor abstain from the things we should not. And that is why fathers keep their sons, however temperate they may be, out of the reach of wicked men, considering that if the society of the good is a training in virtue so also is the society of the bad its dissolution.…

…as long as they lived with Socrates they were able by his support to dominate their ignoble appetites; but being separated from him, Critias had to fly to Thessaly, where he consorted with fellows better versed in lawlessness than justice. And Alcibiades fared no better. His personal beauty on the one hand incited bevies of fine ladies to hunt him down as fair spoil, while on the other hand his influence in the state and among the allies exposed him to the corruption of many an adept in the arts of flattery; honoured by the democracy and stepping easily to the front rank he behaved like an athlete who in the games of the Palaestra is so assured of victory that he neglects his training; thus he presently forgot the duty which he owed himself.…

…Socrates was well aware that Critias was attached to Euthydemus, aware too that he was endeavouring to deal by him after the manner of those wantons whose love is carnal of the body. From this endeavour he tried to deter him, pointing out how illiberal a thing it was, how ill befitting a man of honour to appear as a beggar before him whom he loved, in whose eyes he would fain be precious, ever petitioning for something base to give and base to get.

But when this reasoning fell on deaf ears and Critias refused to be turned aside, Socrates, as the story goes, took occasion of the presence of a whole company and of Euthydemus to remark that Critias appeared to be suffering from a swinish affection, or else why this desire to rub himself against Euthydemus like a herd of piglings scraping against stones.

The hatred of Critias to Socrates doubtless dates from this incident. He treasured it up against him, and afterwards, when he was one of the Thirty and associated with Charicles as their official lawgiver, he framed the law against teaching the art of words merely from a desire to vilify Socrates. He was at a loss to know how else to lay hold of him except by levelling against him the vulgar charge against philosophers, by which he hoped to prejudice him with the public. It was a charge quite unfounded as regards Socrates, if I may judge from anything I ever heard fall from his lips myself or have learnt about him from others. But the animus of Critias was clear. At the time when the Thirty were putting citizens, highly respectable citizens, to death wholesale, and when they were egging on one man after another to the commission of crime, Socrates let fall an observation: “It would be sufficiently extraordinary if the keeper of a herd of cattle who was continually thinning and impoverishing his cattle did not admit himself to be a sorry sort of herdsman, but that a ruler of the state who was continually thinning and impoverishing the citizens should neither be ashamed nor admit himself to be a sorry sort of ruler was more extraordinary still.” The remark being reported to the government, Socrates was summoned by Critias and Charicles, who proceeded to point out the law and forbade him to converse with the young. “Was it open to him,” Socrates inquired of the speaker, “in case he failed to understand their commands in any point, to ask for an explanation?”

“Certainly,” the two assented.

Then Socrates: I am prepared to obey the laws, but to avoid transgression of the law through ignorance I need instruction: is it on the supposition that the art of words tends to correctness of statement or to incorrectness that you bid us abstain from it? for if the former, it is clear we must abstain from speaking correctly, but if the latter, our endeavour should be to amend our speech.

To which Charicles, in a fit of temper, retorted: In consideration of your ignorance, Socrates, we will frame the prohibition in language better suited to your intelligence: we forbid you to hold any conversation whatsoever with the young.

Then Socrates: To avoid all ambiguity then, or the possibility of my doing anything else than what you are pleased to command, may I ask you to define up to what age a human being is to be considered young?

For just so long a time (Charicles answered) as he is debarred from sitting as a member of the Council, as not having attained to the maturity of wisdom; accordingly you will not hold converse with any one under the age of thirty.

Soc. In making a purchase even, I am not to ask, what is the price of this? if the vendor is under the age of thirty?

Cha. Tut, things of that sort: but you know, Socrates, that you have a way of asking questions, when all the while you know how the matter stands. Let us have no questions of that sort.

Soc. Nor answers either, I suppose, if the inquiry concerns what I know, as, for instance, where does Charicles live? or where is Critias to be found?

Oh yes, of course, things of that kind (replied Charicles), while Critias added: But at the same time you had better have done with your shoemakers, carpenters, and coppersmiths. These must be pretty well trodden out at heel by this time, considering the circulation you have given them.

Soc. And am I to hold away from their attendant topics also—the just, the holy, and the like?

Most assuredly (answered Charicles), and from cowherds in particular; or else see that you do not lessen the number of the herd yourself.

Thus the secret was out. The remark of Socrates about the cattle had come to their ears, and they could not forgive the author of it.

Advertisements

Civitas Media: Before publishing concealed weapons dB, please help regulate the Government

Regarding: Newspaper chain plans ‘state-by-state’ concealed weapon databases
foxnews.com/us/2014/01/24/newspaper-chain-seeks-to-build-state-by-state-concealed-weapon-databases/

Letter to the Publisher:

I have no guns; please first contribute to regulating the government.

My son just turned 33. When he was six months old, I had to have a gun to work as a security guard.

(Tip: If you have to carry a gun for a living, you want two, one on each side, otherwise, your hips will get messed up.)I never had to discharge the weapon, but once, at the back of a Holiday Inn abutting a freeway, I was confronted by a pack of 4 wild dogs, led by a St. Bernard, the smallest of which was a German Shepherd. They growled at me. I drew down on them. Dogs instinctively understand guns. They backed off. It was only afterwards that I saw they were on the other side of a chain link fence. If they had wanted to cross, however, who knows what would have happened?

My six month old son was getting his diaper changed. I was “dry firing” an “unloaded weapon” in a direction 45 degrees away from where he was being changed. BAM! went my “unloaded” weapon.

I got rid of the gun, 32 years ago, and I haven’t had one since.

Before you publish your concealed weapon permit database, would you please start an online search database of government vehicle licenses?

This is so that, when a government employee misbehaves, a “citizen” (remember that old civics word?), can note the license number, record the date, time, location and specifics of the misbehavior, and report the matter to the agency-in-question’s Risk Management Department, the only thing that our civil “regulators” fear.

The old shibboleth: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

How about a new one: “If the government weren’t arbitrarily armed, citizens wouldn’t need guns.”

Think about it: It’s now technologically possible, for guns to be remotely detected using a kind of “radar”.

At the same time, it’s technologically possible to electronically lock a gun to only operate for an assigned “owner”.

Now, if the Police can scan remotely, and disarm those in possession of guns, the Police…

*** 35% of whose shootings are either partner- (20%) or self-inflicted (15%)***
 

…could be required to get instant authorization to activate/arm an electronically locked weapon.

Okay, there are all kinds of implementation issues, as there are with any law.

The point is, why vilify people who nearly always get guns because the Police can’t protect them, if you’re not going to advocate for the fullest extent of measures to protect them?

Guns are such a hassle. I’m lucky to have moved to an area with half the murder rate of my former domicile. (There, the Police didn’t even bother responding to reports of small arms discharge, so we stopped calling.)

You have a tremendous privilege influencing public opinion.

Please take up the corresponding responsibility to act for all people’s welfare, regardless of their “political opinion”—whatever that means in this age of the greatest commercial propaganda in history.