A person’s Purpose (the right word would be Dharma, which can defined on the lines of constituting one’s identity) is ‘x’ -and the nature of ‘x’ is like teaching and you think that the more people this teaching reaches, the better for humanity- but the state prohibits this person from continuing this activity, and presents 2 options;
Death; if you continue practising/preaching this ideal you will be executed :- this preserves your integrity of conduct, but this decapitates your hopes of spreading your truth (you cant be a martyr)
Exile; you are to be sent to far away lands and commanded not to practise this Dharma of your’s. :- In which you see the possibility of practising this idea secretively (to a diminished proportion, only quantitatively reduced)
The Dilemma is this;
Should you keep your dharma perfectly pure but stop living it altogether,
or keep living it in a limited way, even if it can’t be fully expressed?
I did some little looking up. Those who voted during Socrates’ trial were more certain that they wanted our perennial gadfly dead than they were certain about his guilt. In figures that would mean something like 90\% wanted him dead although only 56\% found him guilty. Like smoking, thinking is injurious to one’s health. It’s ironic given he fessed that he knew nothing.
Never give up. I have a small chance of practicing my dharma, then I will do so. Should it require me to be secretive, then I’d be secretive. Obviously, it’s a battle between myself and the state. So, I go to the battle hoping to stay alive.
It is the eternal battle (that sounded a lot better in my head), I can see that but, your dharma is something that you live and or die for, and the choice between the two is your’s
Here is yet another pseudo-logicalization of the human condition, absolutely typical of English analytic philosophy.
There is no logical “dilemma” here. There are merely biological and existential life circumstances. In this specific case, Socrates was extremely old. He simply chose to make a spectacular, theatrical exit—to go out with a bang—rather than withering away and dying of old age or disease on a sickbed.
His decision has everything to do with the pragmatic reality of facing death, and absolutely nothing to do with some fabricated “Dharma dilemma.”
Doing actual philosophy means understanding the real human context. It does not mean playing autistic little logic games. But unfortunately, that is the only thing you Anglo-Saxons know how to do. I have just explained exactly why your tradition is permanently trapped in this sterile neurosis in my other thread: “The Paradox of Analytic Philosophy.”
I am not very keen on self promotion but i have read and replied to his claims in that ‘thread’ of his, and its really ‘Intriguing’ is the word i would use.
There was no dilemma for Socrates. He chose to live a just life. On this both Plato and Xenophon agree. He was obedient to the law even if the city treated him unjustly. Although integrity is required for being just, being just involves more than integrity.
Unlike the sophists, Socrates did not go out in the world to teach. He remained in Athens. His circle of friends was small. It was not so much about how many people his teaching reached but how many people were willing to live an examined life.
What would I do? I don’t think I have a perfectly pure Dharma, whatever that might mean. I don’t think I have anything of such importance to say that would enter into my decision.
I am now past the age that Socrates was. I don’t think Xenophon’s remark about Socrates’ age should be taken at face value. Xenophon was a subtle writer. I think Socrates’ unwillingness to defend himself at trial had much to do with his defense of philosophy. Something not suitable for a court of law. Such a defense can be found in the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon.
