From the book “AN AUTISTIC WORLD”
The revolution came and went. Men fought bitterly to the end defending their points of view and their interests. Athens never had such an unpalatable meal on its mouth before. Its government was in danger of being erased from history, years earlier the Spartans got rid of it on a swift invasion. Athens had lost its splendor as the center of a universe of alliances between city-states, usually sprinkled along the golden shores of the Mediterranean sea. On the winning side, corrupt and inefficient politicians, generals, and an array of well-established citizens were holding on to a tradition of superstition and mistrust that produced a society governed by an army of shifters, dealers, and merchants ready to exchange any hint of morality for a good profit. On the loosing side, a troop of idealists, mostly young fellows that found enough reasons and arguments to confront the crude reality of a decaying nation, submerged in chaos and absurdity.
In the eye of the hurricane, a bald-headed philosopher called Socrates was convicted by the winning party of corrupting the minds of future generations of democratic citizens. These citizens, after following his reasonable advice of questioning practically everything, didn’t wanted to convey the senseless message imposed by the society’s ruling majority, and on their own decided to change it with unfortunate results. Socrates was found responsible of inciting the revolution and was judged by the same crowd of people, that he had condemned in the past for being ignorant, foolish, and violent. In his Apology, he defended the freedom of thought and expression, morality, and self wisdom, which in the crowd’s view left him with two choices: to withdraw openly the beliefs that he had embraced during the course of his life and then leave the city, or to die. Socrates choose the virtuous option sealing in great manner the destiny of Athens.
So resigned to his fate, he accepted their decree and gracefully drunk the hemlock. His last words were to a friend:
“Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?”
“The debt shall be paid” said Crito.”
Crito may very well had paid Socrates debt but we haven‘t paid our debt to Socrates. He supported a state of virtue and justice where the citizens were informed of the advantages of finding and defending the truth over their own personal interest. To him, the community must strive to be righteous towards the individuals that form its body, and it mustn’t censure or scorn those that could help. To achieve that end, Socrates states that: “The easiest and noblest way, is not to be crushing others, but to improve yourself.”
Across history, societies have painfully learned part of his lessons, particularly in Occident. Still, there is a great deal of improvement to be made. The nature of man repeats itself in each democratic society showing the same characteristics over time; like a tragic play were the same actors change their masks to convey an old message. Socrates understood the necessity of having influential citizens away from the sphere of politics, as well as he understood that many citizens lack the wisdom to participate in important state decisions because they are more interested in filling their pockets than they are in searching themselves.
Socrates owed a cock, but we still owe him the recognition that the virtue of a community resides in the humility of the individuals to acknowledge their limits. Like a brave bull that is not afraid to look at the matador’s cape, his last thought was to remember his moral commitment to his friend Asclepius. To Socrates, keeping his word was more important than confronting his death.
It appears clear to me that our society is not only physically handicapped by the size of its mass, as its legs seem incapable of sustaining its own weight to cross the breach towards reason, but it is also morally deprived of the indispensable will to do it. The good news is that the same disadvantages could be discovered in small crowds of people and if we refine our observation, these disabilities could also be noticed in a single individual.
Thus, if we trail our deduction back to its origins we should see that the given solution is to improve the physical condition and the spiritual capabilities of the majority of the members that make-up the society’s body. But does that mean that some of them must be removed to carry on society’s common quest for survival? Could our citizens live with that decision?