Philosophers have sought to change the world in many different ways. Perhaps two of the more infamous, Socrates and Confucius, have done so whether pleading for their own life or simply expressing worldly ideas in a distinctive manner, respectively. Through Apology, Socrates does not only attempt self-defense against a council of Athenians, but he also tries to turn himself into something of a martyr. Socrates does this by exclaiming himself as a divine being that has not been able to find anyone more knowledgeable than he. On the other hand, Confucius believes that an Eastern expression of universal ideals is more compelling than a Western counterpart. Although familiar themes appear with the likes of Aristotle and Plato, Confucius is thought by some to more influential rhetoric.
Socrates, in Apology, seeks to save his life, and yet after the court’s decision, he decides that his life means more than the physical nature and welcomes death. Socrates’ argument is split into two sections, one that concerns itself with past accusers and the other with the current. The fact that he was unable to be silent first of these two groups only leaves one to believe that his defense was never that convincing, to begin with. In fact, the most convincing defenses do not have to be repeated. The second fault in Socrates’ argument is that he does not speak with confidence until attacking Meletus directly. With confidence waning in and out through portions of Apology, Socrates begins to sound desperate for his life; not what one would expect from a true martyr. He also charges his accusers of not only defrauded the Athenians but also claims the accusers believe themselves to be superhuman. Yet, later in Apology, Socrates is the one who says that although the Delphi God said he was the wisest, he did not believe this to be true until he searched among his peers. He continues by stating it was by a divine purpose that he found his knowledge. Finally, Socrates discusses the fact that he never held a public office, only private teachings, yet he claims that he has only taught knowledge heard by everyone. An apology is nothing more than a frivolous attempt by a more than aged man to establish a defense, in which the defendant only accentuates the accusers’ points.
Conversely, Confucius sets out to influence the Eastern expression on universal ideals. He does so through VII:15, in saying that happiness is found in the acceptance of the conditions of one’s environment, not in varying degrees of performance. Although Aristotle and Plato differ on their details, the idea that certain levels of performance in life will gain happiness is just not as convincing as Confucius’ idea. Eastern philosophy concentrates on acceptance, while Western philosophy looks to take action. Acceptance does not require action, and thus some may view acceptance as being lazy. However, taking action simply for the sake of doing so, more often than not, leads to even more complex problems. Therefore, the avoidance of more problems would be taking action through a different means and without expending extra energy. Eastern philosophy, to a greater degree, affects change through a natural delineation of energy. Confucius, ultimately, realized this and thus becomes the most convincing of the three.
Philosophers, in different modes and to varying degrees, look to convince their audiences through subtle personal ideals. This is natural for human beings; therefore, those who understand and welcome this develop more convincing arguments. Confucius did so by not contradicting himself and attempting to manipulate the environment. Unlike Socrates, he chose to shape his environment via personal reflections as opposed to self-preservation. Socrates, if trying to gain the sense of a martyr, did not do so in Apology. Confucius, on the contrary, did so magnificently in Analects.
References
Confucius. (n.d.) Analects.
Socrates. (n.d.) Apology.