WHAT DID SOCRATES MEAN??
I have long been fascinated and a bit confused by Plato’s claim that in his final speech before the Athenian Senate Socrates stated that “Wickedness runs faster than death”. Clearly, he was accusing the Senate of being “wicked” when it sentenced him to death for causing the Athenian defeat at the hands of Sparta following the Peloponnesian Wars around 399 BCE. It seems clear that the Senate was using Socrates as a scapegoat to cover their own failures in the recent war with Sparta.
Thus, Socrates’ statement entails the claim that the Athenian Senate was being wicked when they sentenced him to death for his part in this fiasco. If one reads Plato’s Apology it is clear that Socrates claimed he was innocent of any crimes in connection with the war with Sparta. History would seem to bear him out. My difficulty has long been with the poetic contrast that Socrates draws between “wickedness” and “death”. Put bluntly, just wherein lies the difference between these two negative qualities?
Clearly, Socrates is accusing the Athenian Senate of being “wicked”, or evil, in their self-effacing reasons for sentencing him to death. And his death sentence at their hand thus speaks for itself in this regard. They do appear to have been evil, or “wicked” in this case. So, Socrates would appear to have been “not guilty” in this contest. This much is clear. What is not fully clear to me is the meaning of the contrast between wickedness, which “runs faster than death” and death itself. These two realities do not somehow seem to be fit for drawing such a contrast. The one is an ethical characteristic while the other is a physical characteristic.
Clearly, in Socrates’ case, death will overtake him soon. Yet he claims that the wickedness of the Senate will “out run” his death. Clearly the contrast is not so much between “death” and “wickedness”, nor between Socrates’ death and that of the Senators, since apparently, he would and did die before any of them. No, Socrates’ contrast was between two quite distinct domains of action, that of moral evil and mortal death. But the question remains: why or how would evil run faster than death? The two categories are on the face of it incompatible.
Setting aside the possibilities that Plato miswrote, and Socrates misspoke, where does this seemingly off-center dilemma leave or lead us? A good poetry teacher would mark down one or both of these ways of speaking. The contrast does not seem to make sense. How can a moral quality, in this case “wickedness”, run at all, let alone faster than death itself? Has not Plato, or Socrates, misspoken here? Death and wickedness are not meaningful opposites. Who is to blame for this error?
Well, I think that what Socrates was trying to say here is that the wickedness of the Senators condemning him to death is morally worse than the merely mortal death to which they have condemned him. The pay-off for their immorality will arrive “before”, or “more significantly”, than will the death of Socrates. Indeed, in the very act of condemning him unfairly the Senators have already “outrun” Socrates’ impending death by virtue of the fact that they have committed a moral evil, which counts more, weighs more, or “runs faster than” the mere death of Socrates.
Socrates never lied to his students nor to his inquisitors, and everyone in Athens knew this. Indeed, he was highly thought of as a former soldier and current Senator, as well as admired for his teaching the youths of Athens for free. It is clear, from this exchange of images and his own proven character, that his accusers are way off-base here. So, in wrongly condemning Socrates to death his accusers have already “outrun” him and his death, putting themselves to shame for having condemned one of their favorite citizens to death. It took a while for his time to come, but Socrates did drink the fatal hemlock. His accusers, whose own wickedness outran Socrates’ death, were left to live with this ironic fate even though Socrates was now dead.
4 responses to “WHAT DID SOCRATES MEAN??”
1. I take Socrates to be asserting a metaphor or proto-parable. He makes a specific ironic claim that foists a question on us. Through it, a facet of the examined life comes into focus: How is it that Socrates the slow has not himself been caught by wickedness, if it is so quick? To draw on other elements of the image he paints, yes, we see that speed and cleverness are insufficient to keep one from being caught. But we must also ask what it is about being slow, patient, and straightforward (in contrast with fast, hasty, and clever) that keeps one on the path.
↑
That image of the victory of the slow, patient, and straightforward over the fast, hasty, and clever is the fertile, ironic image I take him to be presenting for our mulling. It prompts an introspection: Where am *I* on the spectrum running between these? If fast, hasty, and clever in approach, I might fruitfully pay attention to what that M.O. is getting me.
2. Further, Socrates notes that his own slowness better corresponds to the speed of death, and his accusers’ speed corresponds to the speed of wickedness. Might the “rate of travel” metaphors here serve to group Socrates and Death (as part of the same running cohort, so to speak), and His Accusers and Wickedness (as part of a distinct cohort)? It’s as if he’s “running with death,” and they’re “running with wickedness” – and, as is the nature of things, each is eventually caught up in the fate associated with their respective cohorts.
——
I’m including the passage I consulted for context, from the Tredennick translation: “In a court of law, just as in warfare, neither I nor any other ought to use his wits to escape death by any means.” Compared to death, “doing wrong … is … more fleet of foot. In this present instance I, the slow old man, have been overtaken by the slower of the two, but my accusers, who are clever and quick, have been overtaken by the faster — by iniquity. When I leave this court I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convicted by truth herself of depravity and wickedness.”
WOW – very clear, deep, and scholarly :O) Evil is, indeed, worse, or more evil, than death itself. Thanks bren for the insight and scholarship. Paz, Jerry
Agree. This statement makes more sense as more context specific than something like “No harm can come to a good man.”
Thanks Tim – that’s an interesting example you give :O) Paz, Jerry