American Lessons from the Trial of Socrates

Fear promotes illiberalism, illiberalism produces enslavement

Some 2,400 years ago, the ancient father of philosophy Socrates was placed on trial in what is probably the most well known tribunal where ideas that threatened the prevailing power structure were held to account. Most recall the method of execution - forced drinking of (most likely) hemlock poison - that Socrates suffered; but the arguments and charges brought are fascinating in their own right, and offer valuable lessons for us in modern western society today.

The specific charges brought against Socrates stemmed from the accusation of impiety, or desecrating the gods and pertinent religious structure recognized by Athens at the time. The most serious of charges that Socrates was accused of were “corrupting the youth” and “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”. The latter charge carried the death penalty upon conviction, since atheism was in no way permitted in ancient Athens. Socrates was additionally charged with less serious offenses known as the “old accusations”, but for brevity’s sake we will only deal with the more severe ones previously mentioned here.

Contrary to what some may think, Athenian society at the time viewed the search for wisdom and philosophical pursuits to be a waste of time. Socrates knew that his dialogues in the streets and marketplaces made him an unpopular figure among the Athenian elite, and that the deck was stacked against him upon entering his trial. Additionally, being a well-known figure for years had brought with it the misfortune of having playwrights and other social critics of the time help to shape the views of the judges since their youth. His detractors would often paint Socrates as a subversive atheist in such works, a charge that Socrates himself vehemently denied in his defense, calling them a product of malicious slander.

The final verdict from the 501 jurors resulted in 280 for guilty, and 221 not guilty. It is said that Socrates actually appeared shocked that the verdict was so close, fully expecting to be roundly condemned by the biased tribunal. Sticking with tradition, Socrates was allowed to suggest what his own punishment should be. It was even offered that Socrates could pay a fine and agree to desist in his actions that brought him to trial, which would allow him to escape capital punishment for his supposed crimes. In response to this however, Socrates uttered the famous words, “An unexamined life is not worth living”; meaning that frankly he would prefer death over the prospect of living a life devoid of philosophical pursuits. True to his conviction, Socrates drank from the infamous poison cup, and the rest is history.

So what does all of this have to do with the present? One of the prizes of Athenian culture at that time was the right to free speech. Athenian society viewed itself as the bastion of intellectual exploration and philosophical inquiry. And yet, when this climate of freedom produced the ultimate product of these ideals in Socrates, they executed him for it.

Socrates unspoken crime was having the audacity to question the status quo. His manner wasn’t one of a flowery orator bellowing on for hours about the erudite topics considered to be revered among the Athenian upper crust. Socrates would simply employ what has become known eponymously as the socratic method, as he would ask his subjects questions, inspire them to question themselves, and question those things taken for granted at the time. This of course included questioning the power dynamic and religious structures that dictated Athenian life. He wasn’t a revolutionary in the sense of attempting to cultivate sedition among the masses; but his way of inspiring one to consider the reasons why society was ordered in the way it was, instead of obediently accepting it as an inevitable part of life started to threaten the power structure, and struck fear in the hearts of those wielding power within Athenian society.

We in the modern west have long ago abandoned a religiously organized society, whether pantheistic or monotheistic, and have instead borrowed from the ancient Greeks in employing a structure based on individual freedom, liberalism, and a republican form of government that utilizes basic principles of democracy. In doing so we have enshrined self-governance as the superior form of governance that prizes individuality and self-determination. However, in recent decades, a slow and creeping diabolical form of illiberalism has taken root in the four pillars of culture - academic, media, entertainment, and political. As of late, it seems that this cancer is spreading more and more rapidly and with more audacity than ever before.

A foundational principle built into American society has been the idea that all men are created equal and are equal in the eyes of law. This idea has allowed America to flourish as it creates a level playing field that holds everyone accountable to the same standard of law and order regardless of class, status, or individual immutable characteristics. The feudal structures of the past and its baked in protections for those of nobility and the elite are rendered void according to the founding principles of the United States. Speaking truth to power, and the right to worship or not worship as one pleases, without government persecution as enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution, was a revolutionary ideal that has made American life the envy of the world for so many systematically oppressed by their governments.

While the ancient Greeks prized free speech, they also considered their religious pantheon sacrosanct, and would abandon their liberalism in order to defend the religious order and punish those attempting to undermine it. In today’s western society, a new order has become the modern dogma by which all are expected to revere and hold sacred. Instead of a religious orthodoxy, the new doctrine is purely secular and humanist in nature. There is an effort to abandon the idea of equality under the law and instead embrace an egalitarian view that some are more equal than others, and that sociopolitical power centers must utilize their respective cudgels in order to rectify the inequalities and enforce the new order.

This “new order” has become a guiding doctrine within progressive circles, and is presented as enlightenment among leftists. The same political factions once known as liberal for embracing free speech and expression that challenged the status quo, have shifted to a radically illiberal view that is rigid and inflexible in its pronouncements.

As a specific example of this phenomenon, one can examine the evolution of the LGB movement into the LGBTQIA+++ movement. In the latter 1970s and into the 1980s, gay Americans were starting to come “out of the closet” as it were, and demanded to be viewed as equals and no longer as repulsive second class citizens. And in a purely free society that held all men equal regardless of various factors, they had a valid point. Over the next decade, progress was made in this area, and gays and lesbians were able to successfully integrate into society without having to pretend to be something else. They became doctors, lawyers, firemen, sales clerks, and cab drivers - just like everyone else; while being able to be who they were without persecution. It seemed for a while that everyone was happy, as straight and gay people lived in harmony as neighbors, with neither one demanding too much of the other outside of the normal expectations of a civil society. In short, gay Americans wanted nothing more than tolerance from their fellow Americans, which allowed them to flourish.

Sometime into the 21st century, the LGB acronym started to slowly acquire more letters, as widespread tolerance encouraged more people to be open with their alternative lifestyles. Parallel with this occurrence, the politics of grievance started to take root within the various cultural channels. Certain groups claimed they were oppressed by other groups, and that the latter owed the former. As this mindset became more widespread, social victim status became the prize. The further away one’s identity group was from what was considered traditional, the more social victimhood one had claim to. Transgender people had still been living somewhat on the fringes of society, and transgenderism wasn’t a well-known or widely understood lifestyle in the early 2000s. However, as they began to find a home within the LGB community, they became more widely recognized. That recognition coupled with their social victim status, imbued them with power as a social group. As the progressive left began to coddle them as poor victims of injustice, they were no longer satisfied with the quest for tolerance as gay and lesbian Americans had been years earlier. Their demand for tolerance transformed into a demand for acceptance; and acceptance evolved into validation; and validation eventually into advocacy; and now advocacy into endorsement. Currently, one who does not openly endorse with all sincerity the burgeoning transgender movement - which has now found itself flourishing even in elementary schools - is considered backward and bigoted by the prevailing progressive social power dynamic.

It has been suggested by some that the LGB movement divest itself from the more radical elements that have attached themselves, since their goals are not generally aligned. One could argue that the noxious berating that emanates from the radical transgender activist set has done much more damage to the original LGB movement than any outside force ever could. An uptick in gay Americans finding themselves more comfortable within more conservative circles reflects this dynamic. Americans have always prided themselves on being able to freely support and reject that which their conscience dictates. However, the growing illiberal dogma being cultivated within modern culture has more and more demanded homogenous adherence without question to the progressive woke orthodoxy. Much like it was in Socrates’ day, today’s religious fervor centers around the hedonistic pursuits of the individual and society’s advocacy and untempered support of it. To question that new structure, or inspire a resistance to it, is to “fail to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”. To call out ideas such as forced sterilization and hormone blockers for prepubescent children as ludicrous is to “corrupt the minds of the youth” in the eyes of the woke faithful and progressive acolytes religiously devoted to far left secular ideals.

This current trend is starting to spin out of control as progressives become more and more dogmatic, and demand the validation of ideas that compromise the basic tenets of individual liberty, such as parental rights. A child still in their parent’s care is too young to be totally self-deterministic, and so common sense dictates that such a responsibility is to be housed within the child’s parents. However, many progressive factions are advocating for the state to be able to force policies upon children without parental consent, some even claiming that parents have no right to have a say in their child’s education.

This new progressive orthodoxy is being hailed as enlightenment, when in fact, it is deeply illiberal and regressive to its core. While one shouldn’t expect literal trials and executions for rejecting woke precepts anytime soon as Socrates did for bucking the religious structures of his day, denouncing the fervent leftist dogma for what it is will incur social penalties for those who dare speak out.

The number of children claiming to be transgender and seeking what is unironically called “gender affirming care” has reached a fever pitch, as numbers have almost tripled between 2017 and 2021. To offer any other view other than these children are truly suffering a legitimate psychological medical condition and are victims of circumstance is viewed as sacrilege. Children have always been subject to social pressures within their peer groups, and social media has made these interactions instantaneous and worldwide. It is viewed as a badge of honor among the youth of today to claim to suffer from some form of gender crisis, and to seek medical relief from it. Progressive parents are all too willing in many cases to offer their children as a sacrifice upon the altars of secular leftism and subject them to treatments for diseases they may not even suffer from. In a growing number of cases, these children grow out of their gender questioning phase, and regret any treatments they may have received, electing to start the de-transitioning process. Chloe Cole is one such teen, and has made it her mission to warn others of a corrupt system and social climate that rewards gender dysphoria - even if such a diagnosis is false. One need look no further than the response to one of Ms. Cole’s presentations by the radical left who obviously feel that she is another example of one committing the same crime charged of Socrates, “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”.

If we are to continue to thrive as the free culture we have always known, we must be willing to confront this malicious and malignant illiberalism that has a chokehold on our culture. It is paramount that we defend the right of all citizens to be self-determinant, while protecting the rights of the vulnerable. The current woke “enlightenment” is indeed a prison, unwavering, unforgiving, and collectivist in its ideals. It does not offer a path to freedom and liberty, but a brutal dungeon that permits no intransigence. Those truly suffering from legitimate gender dysphoria should have the same rights as anyone else seeking medical care, but shouldn’t be hailed as cultural icons or heroes simply for seeking relief from a psychological condition. Likewise, those cautioning against finding a transgender tempest in every teapot shouldn’t be castigated or reviled for suggesting balance or restraint. A society that punishes the exploration of ideas, even if those ideas are held with religious conviction, isn’t worth living in - as Socrates himself ultimately agreed with.