A Very Old Conflict

Bryan Kelly, January 2023

When we look at politics and these United States, and indeed, the entire world, there are some very old problems causing great difficulties. This essay is about one of those problems. It has waxed and waned through the ages and will never be completely resolved. This problem is currently in a cycle that may even be called a rage.

General endnotes: [i]

Let us visit an early example of our old and long enduring problems, that is Socrates of Athens.

Socrates lived from about 470 BC until 399.[1] A one-day trial was held and he was executed by the government. Why did that happen?

Socrates did not preach anything. Nor did he extoll those around him to do anything. His methods are now what we call the Socratic method, or the method of refutation. It is also referred to as teaching by asking thoughtful questions.[2] [3] He asked prominent people to carefully state their positions and beliefs, and in effect, their behaviors. As these powerful people laid out their positions in detail, more questions became apparent.

And the contradictions became apparent. With his questions Socrates broke through the barriers of proclaimed righteousness and got to the truth of the beliefs and behaviors.

Socrates tells the jurors that, as a result of his inquiries, he has learned a bitter lesson about his fellow citizens: not only do they fail to possess the knowledge they claim to have, but they resent having this fact pointed out to them, and they hate him for his insistence that his reflective way of life and his disavowal of knowledge make him superior to them.[4]

… No one will say, “I hate Socrates because I cannot answer his questions, and he makes me look foolish in front of the young.” Instead, people hide their shame and the real source of their anger by seizing on the general impression that he is the sort of philosopher who casts doubt on traditional religion and teaches people rhetorical tricks that can be used to make bad arguments look good.

Side note: This concept has been part of humanity for a long time, and always will be. When people lose an argument, they seldom lose gracefully. Lacking any directly relevant facts to support their position, they utilize anger in the hopes others will acquiesce. They denigrate their opponents and hope that the opponents lack of credibility increased theirs. All too often, when the general public is involved, this tactic is successful. The reason for this is that the general public will not take the time to investigate and discover for themselves.

Returning to the current topic:

This did not go well with those in power, those who wanted the masses to do as they said without question. Some of these people were known as the Thirty Tyrants.[5] This provides an indicator of the times.

The questions and probing by Socrates was perceived so badly that they held a mock trial, all of one day by some accounts, and found him guilty. A sentence of death was the only option. A prison or fines would not suffice as Socrates would still be able to talk to people and ask those infuriating and extremely embarrassing questions.

If we were to venture back to those days, how would we categorize Socrates and the political leaders. This question is easy.

But first: Language is a uniquely human creation. All humans use one or more languages. An often overlooked core concept is that we must all agree upon the meaning of each and every word. In large societies that is best accomplished through the use of dictionaries.

Please note that dictionaries do not dictate the meaning of the words they, describe the use. Those who update the dictionaries spend significant effort in observing how the words are used and therefore the definition of those words. Again, those definitions are discovered and reported, not dictated. Now we are ready to check the definitions of a few key words.

The political definition of a progressive is:

1. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas:

A definition of those who are liberal is:

1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

2. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise

Before I continue, stop and consider a moment: Liberals tend to respect or accept behaviors that might be different. Is that something that should be used as a sneer word, a derogatory comment?

A liberal philosophy promotes individual rights and civil liberties.

Please, think real hard about this for a moment. Does that concept constitute being used as a degrading curse word?

The Republican party says yes and uses it that way. The rational conclusion from the definition of the words is a clear and resounding No!

Socrates would be the progressive, or the liberal. He asked questions of why are things done as they were. He asked if those behaviors were just and rational. He asked the ruling elite to carefully and clearly explain their policies and beliefs. He did not start an uprising. He did not encourage anyone to take any action. His only “crime” was to expose the truth.

The detailed exposing of the policies and beliefs of the elite was not at all appreciated by the ruling conservatives.

And who were those that opposed him. Sentenced him to death. They were the political powerhouses of the day. And they did not like anyone pointing out those embarrassing contradictions. They were the ones that wanted to keep the status quo. Meaning, they wanted themselves and those like them to stay in power.

Lets look at the word conservative.

1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

2. (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.

The ruling elite of those days would clearly fit into the category of conservative. This short story from the past describes an early battle between the liberals and progressives of the day against the conservatives. It was certainly not the first, and the conflicts continue to rage today.