The obtuseness and hypocrisy of humans had long been recognised as plight which no human agency or law is in a position to change. Rather, the ailments have been portrayed under various guises, especially through literature, as providing some camouflage for the accommodation of other weaknesses, with vanity as a fuelling factor. Apuleius, author of an ancient book: The Golden Ass, gave some insight into the common flaws which humans must strive to check. Socrates, an ancient philosopher whose wisdom was commended by the Delphic oracle above that of all living men in his time, was sentenced to death, as spreading anti-social philosophy. It was by the treachery and jealousy of a wicked clique in Athenian politics and judiciary that he was found guilty of corrupting young people. He died by drinking the poisonous hemlock cup, which, like crucifixion, was the form of doing away with condemned criminals and public enemies. One young man who loved Socrates and his ideas, was heard as asking: “Are you surprised that judges are corrupt?”
The truth was that the philosophy of Socrates was directed towards bridling, rather than, inflaming the passions of young persons; questioning the status-quo and established opinions and belief system, rather than embrace blind faith. Like the more recent era of The Inquisition and religious persecution or dogmatism, the judicial murder of Socrates left an indelible stain on the reputation of Athenian politics and judiciary. There grew a wide-spread conviction that force, treachery and hypocrisy were ready instruments of maintaining the status-quo. To describe Socrates as an idiom is another way of saying that power is an asset whose custody provides the due for the judicial murder of Socrates as a philosopher of human happiness and well-being. Custody of power is synonymous with maintaining the status – quo which demands that radicalism should be kept in check, even through the use of force, treachery and corrupt means. So it was that when the radical influence of the philosophy of Socrates was considered to be an affront on prevailing power structure and belief system, it became necessary to check the “dangerousness of the radical philosopher”.
There were no lack of witnesses and hired agents of prevailing power structure to testify that questioning every issue or idea and putting them to the test of verification before accepting them as true, was a dangerous philosophy. That was how the radical philosophy of Socrates became a danger to society by corrupting young persons. That old strategy of hunting and putting a security tag on radical elements in society has not stopped, neither are the motives for such sneaky surveillance always noble. Especially with regard to the hunt for and custody of power, there is no limit to what power-merchants can do to see that they are not taken by surprises, via undue radicalism. Wole Soyinka would say that: “The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny … In any people that submit willingly to the daily humiliation of fear, the man dies”. Among the antics and strategy for holding on to power are the use of force and tyranny, where money and other means fail to achieve the goal of mass submission to power. Keeping the masses in a state of ignorance helps to keep them in a state of docility, such that any radical person or group waking them from slumber, becomes a security risk.
Socrates of Athens (469-399 B.C.) was a philosopher and a radical agent of change in society, whose goal was to induce people to think and make judgements for themselves, based on personal conviction. Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany was to say many centuries after; “What Luck for rulers that men do not think.” Thus those who hustle for and hold power usually hold the opinion that “men do not think”, but can easily be swayed by material inducements, promises or threats. Thus the masses remain in bondage.Robert Ingersoll, a self-professed agnostic, in spite of his non-association with religious views of life, would say that “Free thought will give us truth. When all have the right to think and to express their thoughts, every brain will give the best it has”. From the earliest history of man, there has always been the tendency on the part of rulers in all fields of human activities, to prevent the masses from thinking for themselves and from expressing their thought freely. Thus radical agents of social change who challenge this suppression of freedom of thought and expression, have been regarded as capable of corrupting the masses, as Socrates was accused of.
After the sad death of their master and teacher, some pupils of Socrates considered it fit to preserve the cream and substance of the philosophy handed to them. One of such pupils was Plato. Because of the prejudice and tyranny of the clique and cabal that brought about the death of Socrates, Plato resorted to the use of idioms, parables and figurative styles to express the philosophy of his late teacher. One of Plato’s idioms was that humanity had reared a deadly and ambitious beast that would stop at nothing to ensure that no one is spared that is not willing to submit to it. When asked what that figurative beast was, Plato pointed a finger at his own head and said: that dangerous beast lurks within everyone, ready to destroy those who try to expose its strategies and antics. That idiomatic rendition of the philosophy of Socrates by Plato, became such an enigma that commentators on the works of Plato often skip or gloss over reference to “the dangerous beast lurking within”. Even in the modern times, little is known about the death of Socrates being an idiom for humanity: derailment!
The cup of hemlock that ended the life and teaching of Socrates of ancient Athens, is not different from the cross of crucifixion which sought to end the life and message of another “upstart in Nazareth”, about 500 years between the two events. People who take keen interest in the interpretations of idioms, parables, symbols, etc, would tell us that an ambitious, dangerous beast, has to do with the abuse and mis-use of power. Strength and power are two different resources. Late Ken Saro-Wiwa used to tell his friends that power in the hands of weak and immature people suffers abuses. When mad crowds join abusers of power, there is havoc. Leaving out the person of Socrates of ancient Athens alone, the idiom and message arising from his death, can serve as useful indicators that human beings have rarely changed over thousands of years. While many writers have pointed out, through their works, how power and positions have been abused in human history, there is hardly any indication that such abuses no longer occur. Methods and strategies may change, but the motives and key source of the venom remain enigmatic. What accounts for the obtuseness, hypocrisy, vanity and bestiality of humans?

By: Bright Amirize
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.