2500 Years East-West conflict. Salamis, Marathon and Thermopylae reviewed

We forget that the East-West conflict is over 2500 years old.
In fact, the three most important battles in history are in my opinion Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis, where the Greek armies secured the civilisation of today – and here is why.

The overarching issue in this conflict was not the usual “I want more power, land, gold, trade routes, etc.”
The real and not so obvious issue was the firm belief amongst the Persian kings (Darius and his son Xerxes) that their power and their right to extend it were given to them by their super-god Ahuru Mazda. Therefore they had a divine right to imperial expansion that could not even be brought into dispute.

This assumption was in stark contrast to the Greek stance, that the state with its inherent culture and social structure was the result of an intelligent process, human logic and our ability freely to process information.

Surely, the Greek gods were involved, but merely as observing stakeholders and with their built-in human weaknesses as creators of intrigues and conflicts, but certainly not as designers.

Without the Greek victories the emerging, but still frail and undeveloped idea about democracy, would have been buried with Solon and Themistocles. Socrates, the father of observation, analysis, explanation and logical deduction, would not have had a chance to develop his ideas and the basis for our scientific methodology would never have seen the light of day. The Persian master-culture would unhindered have swallowed the rest of Europe. There would have been no Romans, no renaissance, no Beethoven and no Goethe.

Centuries of spiritual and religious darkness would have swept across Europe as the Greek barrier to slavery under the expanding Persian empire, with its suppression of the individual and total demand of submission to the king and his god, was swept away.

It may of course be argued, that the arrival of a later comparable desert religion, which is as totalitarian as the Persian one, might never have happened. It would already have been there and the need for its creation as an underpinning device for divine expansion and dominance would therefore be redundant.

It is awesome how many of the state- and culture forming processes that took place in the years between 500BC and 480BC can be found mirrored in today’s globalised world.

The political parties in the “West” are still embroiled in strife and contention despite the EU artifice – just as the Greek city states 2500 years ago. Some of the small cities amongst the 700 in Peloponnese and Attica tried their come-uppance much like small West European countries try their influencing manoeuvres against the 4 big countries today, ultimately leaving it to Athens and Sparta to sort everything out – comparable to Germany, France and Britain in the EU. The Greek culture, religion and gods were then, as today, a hodgepodge of beliefs, although some sort of a unified culture and a strong human, or secular, element can be identified in both cases. But today, as then, we are up against the ultimate in totalitarian demands for submission of the individual and abandonment of the secular state as we know it.

Most of the Greek city states either sat on their hands or the fence, or had already made the decision that resistance was in vain; rather give in to the barbarians than be subdued by Athens or Sparta.
Although some sort of unity was achieved at the Hellenion conference in Corinth, it was left to Sparta and Athens to sort things out. For most others a continued existence with the head buried in the sand, a continued parochial life awaiting the inevitable fate, seemed to be the only way forward, as the reflections of the sun in the spear heads of the Persian army began to show. Perhaps a life in the shade of the almighty king Xerxes, who in 480BC ruled over the largest empire the world had ever seen, wasn’t too bad after all?
Treat him well, i.e. with respect, and he would treat you well?

Today we are facing a paradigm shift in both religious and state terms.

Externally, an antiquated, obsolete desert religion requires us to drop our Socratic wisdom and individual taking responsibility for our lives and actions, submitting to yet another Ahuru Mazda with the threat of death if resisting to abandon our humanity and hard won freedoms.

Internally, a European super state has emerged, the EU, marketing eternal happiness and no wars while making us pay dearly for the bag of empty promises, reforms and relief from responsibility, that an unelected elite is pressing down over our heads.
In the economic and cultural turmoil that has arisen as a consequence of our greed and lack of learning from history, political parties are reviving dead donkeys like collectivism, Leninism and oligarch driven societies. University College of London students, for example, have posters all over the place calling for a re-emergence of Marxism 2013.
Are they mad?
Perhaps not - just ignorant in the best case - stupid in the worst.
20% of the Danish population support a party that wants to disband the police force, all military and the parliament, replacing it with "people councils".
Are they mad?
Perhaps not - just ignorant in the best case - stupid in the worst.
Sweden wants to open the borders, raising the population from 8mill to 40mill through non-western immigration before 2040.
Are they mad?
Perhaps not - just ignorant in the best case - stupid in the worst.

And You haven't seen the worst yet!!

Socrates wanted people to learn, to understand, at least to realise when they didn’t know, so they could seek new learning. So he was executed, allegedly depraving the youth.

How far have we really come in the 2500 years since the battle of Salamis and the experience from Marathon - a question we have to ask after the 2013 Boston Marathon?
How many people today actually know what Marathon represents?
One only needs to consider modern school systems that do what they can to eliminate national cultures and history while teaching the kids to play; the blinkered approach of creationism; and too many ultra-orthodox schools that prevent anything outside their own belief sphere to enter the brains of the young.

But worst of all: it is becoming a crime to protest this state of affairs.

We accept this as the blessing of a multi-cultural world, closing our eyes for the fact that it actually represents a misunderstood respect for stupidity and ignorance, while we excuse it by calling it the hall marks of “other people’s culture”.

Where are the Athens and the Sparta of 2013, who can save us?

Socrates' sentencing - and what this can teach us today

On the reasons for the sentencing of Socrates

Jorgen Faxholm April 1962, April 2013

One day at school in April 1962, at the tender age of 18 and just before I finished gymnasium and became a student, our Classical Studies teacher announced, that he was very busy and therefore unable to take the class that day. The initial sentiment of freedom was abruptly interrupted, as he proceeded to define a written task which had to be finished and delivered within the hour. He spent 5 minutes outlining what he expected – and then disappeared.

I recently found my written proposal, written with both speed and content in mind. I can hardly recognise my own handwriting, but I do remember the day very well now 51 years later.

Here it follows, in my own translation from Danish – followed by a comment at the end

----------------------

In the year 399 BC three gentlemen by the name of Meletos, Anytos and Lykon filed a complaint against a certain Socrates at the court of the “Basileios” (the king).
Thus started one of the most famous court cases in history.

The reasons for accusing Socrates were mainly as follows:

The Peloponnese war had been raging between 431 and 404, ending with a defeat for Athens. Sparta, being the victor, had reduced the influence of Athens from being a major power to becoming just another small city-state with a reduced army and a destroyed navy.

As the Spartans withdrew their occupation troops, the Athenian democrats overturned the reigning oligarchs and initiated the reconstruction of Athens.

Everyone was now querying the reason for the defeat and at the time it was widely rumoured that it was because of the lethargy of the youth.

The blame was allocated fair and square at the people called “the Sophists”. As many people had become irritated and angry with Socrates’ ways, they found an opportune reason to get rid of him through accusing him of being a “Sophist”.

In this way they conveniently combined two accusations: accusing Socrates of subversive activities, causing the war to be lost and as a person, who was destroying the respect for the state through his sophistic activities.
In short, there is both a political and a philosophical background to his court case.

The Sophists spread their learning through eloquence and charged money for their teaching. It is in this context interesting that several sciences can trace their origin and development to the activities of the Athenian Sophists, e.g. in Mathematics and Geography.

However, the general attitude was that the Sophists undermined the fundamentals of common sense, as they said: every case can be viewed from two sides. The truth is inherent in a person’s conviction and it is impossible to have a wrong opinion; if one realises that one’s stance is wrong, then – of course – one wouldn’t have it any longer!

Consequently even a discussion on the fairness of the laws was possible – in other words: anything goes. Not exactly a solid basis for society.
This quibbling meant that it was possible to turn a weak case into a strong one and vice versa through an eloquent presentation. A clever Sophist could for example turn a creditor into a debtor. It is quite easy to see that a society built on such a premise would soon end up in turmoil. Aristophanes used such arguments in his play “the Clouds”, while thoroughly thrashing the Sophists in general and Socrates in particular.

An added consequence of the sophistic eloquence was the perceived break down of the respect for the Gods, an accusation that added to the serious situation in which Socrates had been landed.

Now, let’s us have a look at why people were so angry with Socrates.

The main object of Socrates’ philosophy was to achieve the perfection of the soul, the “aretē”.

Socrates did not sympathise with the nature-philosophers, who dominated in the period of 600-450. He totally agreed with the logical approach and methods of the Sophists. This is clearly demonstrated in his defence speech and in the dialogue with Kriton.

Socrates was a local Athenian and he took a special delight in getting people to contradict themselves, while his youthful followers listened and laughed. In this way he instigated doubt about the confidence of the culture of the educated classes amongst his audience.

During these word-duels he used Sophistic logic, techniques and eloquence, the result of which was that people took him for being a Sophist.
Unfortunately very few people were able to see Socrates’ deeper objective, namely achieving “Eudaimonia”, true happiness, which could only be reached through one being released from all external surrounding forces. An understandable, but sad inability of the people at the time.

I mentioned the “aretē” of the soul above.
The definition of this concept is “the correct content of courage, fairness, moderation and humility” that constitutes the required elements for success in life.
According to Socrates this could be learned.

Unfortunately no written words from Socrates’ hand have been preserved for the future, but his many small street presentations were intended to prepare the youth, his audience, to see the light, thus providing them with the key to create their own soul’s “aretē”.
In this way he managed to ridicule politicians, orators, poets and others while ordinary people listened.

No wonder he created enemies faster than friends.

One of his proofs concerned a demonstration that he was wiser than everyone else. This clearly provoked and irritated many people.
As an example Xenophon gave this description of Socrates: “a petit-bourgeois, a self serving and irritating old man, who sticks his nose in other peoples’ matters and tells them something they already know”.
2200 years later even Kierkegaard offered the opinion that he understood very well why Socrates had been executed.
Somehow these opinions don’t rhyme well with the fact that Socrates and his learning has had an enormous impact on the thought processes and philosophy of the present.

The accusations against Socrates were presented at the Court of the Heliasts.
There were 501 judges, making a 50-50 result  impossible, but it is honestly a little beyond me, how such a large group would ever be able to reach a concluding judgement.

Meletos, one of the accusers, was the first one to speak.
Next Sokrates defended himself.
Subsequently the Court passed its judgement.

After this both the prosecutor and the accused would speak and indicate the extent of the punishment, provided a guilty sentence had been pronounced.
The judges were forced to accept one of these, a principle that forced both parties to select a reasonable punishment.

In this case Meletos suggested the death sentence, while Socrates, quite undisturbed and to demonstrate his innocence, suggested, that the city should entertain him with a dinner at the Prytaneion (the town hall) just as for the victors from large sports games.
Socrates was quite convinced that this was well deserved, as he considered himself to be “the town conscience”, like a social horsefly.
There is no doubt that this suggestion irritated the judges and moved their attitude closer to that of Meletos.

Socrates then modified his suggestion to a fine of 1 Mine, but his friends now came to his support, proposing a fine of 30 Mines.
It didn’t help.

Socrates was subsequently sentenced to be executed. After the court case he spoke to the Heliasts, predicting that they would deeply regret what they had just done.

Socrates was basically accused of 3 things: that

1) he was a Nature-Philosopher

2) he was a Sophist and

3) he was depraving the youth

In addition he was accused of not believing in the Gods but in demons. The reason for this was probably that Socrates constantly referred to his “daimon”, which is what the rest of us would call our inner voice or conscience.

Meletos said that Socrates has been known to define the moon as a lump of soil and the sun to be a rock, i.e. not being Gods!

In response, Socrates told Meletos off, accusing him of comparing Socrates with Anaxagoras, the Nature-Philosopher. Socrates continued, saying that this kind of learning could be bought for 1 Drachme, essentially not being worth considering. He proceeded with proving that the accusations were contradictory, using sophist eloquence and showing that he actually did believe in the Gods while also believing in “daimons”, as the demons are the children of the Gods.

On the account of being a Sophist, Socrates’ logic fails slightly, when he compares the Sophists with shepherds, but a stronger argument is that he can prove his poverty, i.e. that he never charged for his teachings like other Sophists.

The reason that Socrates was sentenced now seems rather clear: it was his conduct, rather than a proven guilt according to Meletos’ accusations.
Who wants to be publicly told off – exactly what Socrates so eloquently was able to do?

In addition he no doubt irritated the Court, in particular during the sentencing.
The Court had known about Socrates and his activities, not just for a couple of years, but for the last 15-20 years and Socrates’ admiration of the Spartan Constitution was also very well documented. After the Peloponnese war this was hardly to Socrates’ advantage.

Finally Socrates was still friendly with Kritias, the leader of the Oligarchs, after 404 BC, and with Alkibiades.

Consequently, in the mind of his accusers he had built up an image as a traitor – despite a very successful past as a Hoplite during the war.

------------------

A stern comment 51 years later:

What was it that Socrates taught us then and that so profoundly has impacted our society and civilisation?

- Socrates used intellect and logic, rather than blind ‘belief’
- He was a master in the art of questioning. Why? How? – the basis for all science.
- He emphasised the importance of doubt, without which all research would be vain.
- He believed in justice and fairness, without which society would succumb into anarchy or tyranny.
- He was ruthless with people, who exhibited false confidence.

Importantly he also believed that knowledge was a virtue, he was devoted and pietous, politically aware and prudent – but these characteristics were imbedded in a person of a strong temperament and tendency to conceit with an uninhibited delight in mocking others.

Above all, Socrates didn’t pull his punches, but he also knew the strength of his arguments. He was a hard adversary in any discussion, staying clear of belief-arguments and value-statements.

We are deeply indebted to Socrates for creating the underpinning values of our Western society – and more than that: he was a defender of what we would call free speech.

However, being under attack from the politically correct, we are in danger of losing the right and the willingness to express ourselves today.
Very few people find the courage to defend this important basis for civilisation.

The EU is pushing for the abolition of the national state, national values and culture.

A medieval desert culture, which cannot be criticised for fear of political incorrectness, racism and hate speech, is slowly taking over our Socratic values.
Socrates would have been appalled.

Foreign nationals who commit violent crimes cannot be returned to their country of origin for fear of violating their “human rights”, meaning they can continue their criminal behaviour with impunity, eliminating the human rights of their victims.

Authors, writers, artists and intellectuals, who speak up in true Socratic spirit, are condemned to a life in protected anonymity for fear of their lives. One only needs to remember Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Lars Hedegaard, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks and the murdered Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh.

So, is there hope?
Perhaps.

Under celebrity pressure (Rowan Atkinson) and lots of signatures the English Parliament has just, exceptionally, verified “our right to insult”, lighting a small candle in the darkness, but the creeping attack of a medieval desert culture continues to pull us in the other direction.

Everything Socrates stood for is under attack and unfortunately ignorance, materialism, indifference and "the General Human Condition" are taking over – until it perhaps is too late!

But there is another thing that relates directly to the parochial side of Socrates’ sentencing: his social horsefly tendency.
Very few people dare speak up against the society in which they live for fear of social ostracism.
Socrates did and we need people with such courage lest we become a mass of intellectual molasses without values.

In St Peter’s Square, Hammersmith/ London, the residents’ association called SPRA is a true image of the Heliast Court: impervious to criticism, aloof, self centred and responding to criticism with bullying – mainly as hemlock juice is prohibited.

Whistle blowers will always lose, even when they win.
Socrates taught us this as well.

.