A Comparison of Socrates and Luthers Ideas of Freedom
Similarities
The claims of Socrates and Luther to certain freedoms share a few similarities.
An Exhortation to Oppose Established Institutions. Both Socrates and Luthers claims for freedom exhorted people to oppose established institutions. While Socrates tried to undermine the immoral ways of Athenian society, Luther wanted to expose the defects in the theological bases of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Socrates, on one hand, criticized Athenian society when he said, If there were a law at Athens, such as there is in other cities, that a capital cause should not be decided in one day, then I believe that I should have convinced you (Apology). And somehow he implied a certain attachment of Athenians to money when he said, I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private. (Apology)
On the other hand, Luther exhorted Christians and Catholics to question the theological basis of the Catholic doctrines. He expressed his opposition when he mentioned every time he mentioned that works were not a path to spiritual salvation but only faith and faith alone. Aside from this, he mentioned that it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the body. (Luther)
Differences
The claims of Socrates and Luther to certain freedoms also lend themselves to a number of differences from the notion of their freedoms to the way they have presented their claims.
Notion of Freedom. Socrates and Luther were both fighting for different kinds of freedoms.
First of all, one of the freedoms that Socrates was fighting for was more of a freedom of expression, or specifically a general freedom to question the logic that operated behind the Athenian justice system. The Athenian Meletus accused Socrates of being a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other new divinities of his own (Apology). To this accusation, Socrates sarcastically claims his freedom of expression by saying, If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me (Apology). This is the more personal freedom that Socrates was fighting for in the course of his defense. Socrates proved Meletus illogic several times during his defense so Socrates was indirectly making here a claim for the freedom of the mind through logic.
As for the other freedom that Socrates seemed to have been fighting for was the freedom of philosophy. This freedom was implied when Socrates said, Men of Athens, I honor and love you but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy (Apology). Such a statement was naturally taken by the Athenian court as a defiance of the authority of the state that defined obedience to God as obedience to the laws rather than to ones philosophy.
Furthermore, Socrates claim for this freedom and his defense of it in Platos Apology was more of a defense of personal convictions considering that Socrates himself was on trial at the time that he declared his claims for this freedom.
Based on the aforementioned points, the idea of freedom of Socrates was different from that proposed by Luther. Luthers ideas were more on religion rather than on logic and philosophy. Luther expressed the nature of the freedom that he claims when he said, For faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God, brings salvation (Luther). This therefore is a freedom from works, and is explicitly stated by Luther when he said, this faith cannot consist at all with works(Luther) and that no work can cleave to the word of God (Luther).
The Context in which the Soul was Mentioned. Both Socrates and Luther emphasized the importance of the soul but they mentioned the soul in different contexts.
Socrates was indirectly saying that the soul could not live without wisdom and truth, and therefore philosophy. He mentioned the soul in the following line O my friend Athenian, whydo you care so much aboutmoney and honor and reputation, and so little about the wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul (Apology). In the aforementioned line, Socrates was indirectly saying that the soul had to be sustained with wisdom and truth, both of which could be acquired through philosophy.
Luther, on the other hand, described a soul that was totally independent of the body and therefore needed its own separate sustenance which is the word of God. He mentioned What can it profit the soul, that the body should be in good condition, free, and full of life, (Luther) and what harm canevil do to the soul (Luther). Then he said, Let us therefore hold it for certain and firmly established, that the soul can do without everything, except the word of God (Luther). Through these statements, Luther firmly established that, it is not wisdom and truth as Socrates said, but the word of God which can sustain the soul. And finally Luther stated, the word of God cannot be received and honoredbut by faith alone (Luther). Thus, Luther had finally established the importance of faith in the salvation of the soul. Faith was to Luther what philosophy was to Socrates. According to Luther, faith brought the word of God to sustain the soul, while Socrates implied that philosophy brought wisdom and truth for the same purpose.
Humility and Pride. Another difference between Socrates and Luther is that while Socrates maintained humility when he mentioned God, Luther proclaimed pride.
Socrates may have had mixed emotions during the entire trial but he was in all humility when he said, but the truth isthat God only is wiseand that he is using only my name as an illustration (Apology). For Socrates, he was but a mere powerless human being in front of God and in all humility he said, And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone (Apology). Previously in his trial, Socrates mentioned that his friend Chaerephon asked the Oracle at Delphi, which was to believed to speak Gods voice, whether there was anyone wiser than Socrates was, and the Oracle in the person of a Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser (Apology). To this Socrates justified his teaching of philosophy as an act of obedience to God.
While Socrates treated God in all humility in his claim for the freedom of philosophy, Luther proclaimed a certain pride in God as a Christian. This was evident when he said, A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none (Luther) and especially when he said, all we who believe in Christ are kings and priests in Christ (Luther). Luther also hinted at this pride when he said, when Godis honored with all the honor of which He is worthy, then in return He honors us on account of that faith (Luther). While Socrates somehow believed in a God who only directed and advised, Luther believed in a highly interactive one and one of kindness, on which he established his whole claim for freedom from works.
On the Subject of Appeal. On the question on whose claim for freedom was more compelling, Luther seemed to have fared better than Socrates on the basis of his logical presentation which was almost without any emotional trappings found mostly in the latters claims.
Luther logically stated the thesis for his claims for freedom in saying that A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone (Luther), and he goes on to explain this twofold thesis until he arrived at the importance of the word of God, faith, and duty, all in a perfectly logical and organized manner.
Socrates, on the other hand, presented his claim for freedom in a rather emotional series of arguments, which was understandable due to the circumstances he was in at the time he made such claims. His thesis was not clear as most of his points were rather implicitly said, perhaps out of reverence for the judges in the Athenian court. The basis of his defense was perhaps considered weak by the court for although it was stated by the Oracle to his friend Chaerephon, the friend was dead. The alleged words of the Oracle herself may have also been suspected by some Athenian justices at that time and by the accuser Meletus himself for Meletus remained relentless in his accusation all throughout and the Athenian justices in the end pronounced Socrates guilty.
Moreover, there were some inconsistencies in Socrates statements that may have caused confusion among the Athenian justices. First, his mention that God only is wise (Apology) contradicts his belief that there was no man wiser than him (Apology). Secondly, his mention of the truth is that I have no knowledge of the kind (Apology) does not agree with all his strong convictions. Thirdly, the fact that he said, Men of Athens, I honor and love you (Apology) does not at all assume make his audience think that he would say something vindictive like I prophesy to you my murderers thatpunishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you (Apology). Are these the true words of a philosopher or is the whole argument a psychological account of a dead man walking All these confusing statements could have been the reason behind the fact that the votes for and against him are so nearly equal. (Apology)
On the Subject of Risk. When it came to which one between Socrates and Luther was more threatening to the social order of his day, it would be Martin Luther. It is because Martin Luther, in his Concerning Christian Liberty, somehow gave hints that his criticisms were somehow directed against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church which was extremely powerful in the 16th century during which he wrote his essay.
Although Socrates opposed the Athenian justice system in the Apology, Socrates only did so on the streets and, in the Apology, in court. Moreover, his audience in the streets may not have reached a considerable number for his act to qualify as sedition and he may not have directly instigated opposition to the government for his usual subject when he taught was philosophy using the Socratic Method. Socrates could not be compared to Jesus Christ who was in greater danger with the Roman authorities and whose followers started organizing themselves with ceremonies.
The Roman Catholic Church, whose basic tenet of spiritual salvation through good works was criticized by Luther, was unlike the Athenian justice system but was in fact an institution that dominated the whole of Europe at the time that Luther wrote his criticism. Besides, the Catholic Church always had with her the support of the monarchs of England, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and the other countries during Luthers time. Most of all, most opposition to the rules of the Catholic Church met with extreme sanctions from the Inquisition.
Although Martin Luther did not exactly mention the Roman Catholic Church in his Concerning Christian Liberty, every Catholic of his time basically knew that the institution that regarded works as a path to salvation was indeed the Roman Catholic religion. In his essay, Luther mentioned a number of lines that specifically targeted the tenets of the Catholic Church, but the most obvious one is this
it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the body. (Luther)
Conclusion
Both Socrates and Martin Luther claimed that they were entitled to certain freedoms. Socrates demanded freedom of expression and freedom of philosophy within the Athenian society of whose system he was implicitly critical. Martin Luther, on the other hand, wanted freedom from works as a means to salvation, and this freedom he particularly called Christian liberty. Socrates and Luthers claims were similar in that they exhorted people to oppose the established Athenian society and the Roman Catholic Church. The claims to freedom of both men were also different in the nature of the freedom they were fighting for, in their views of the soul, and in terms of mood, appeal and risk. Although there are more differences than similarities, the two works have both not only expressed the dreams and aspirations of these two great man but especially changed the societies in which they lived, although gradually.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment