A heaven for the privileged, for the poor or for everyone?

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Matthew 5: 3-7, KJV

Or in Greek: “μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῶ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται. μακάριοι οἱ πραεῖς, ὅτι αὐτοὶ κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν. μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται.μακάριοι οἱ ἐλεήμονες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται.”

This passage speaks to the people, and this is something very interesting actually, because traditionally, those who were educated, who understood how to act righteous according to the scripture – in other words: those who had the time to dedicate to intensive study in details – were thought to be advantaged in pleasing God, because they have more knowledge to understand God’s plan. But this passage, as said before, does not address the elite, the wealthy and educated, it speaks to the common people. The kingdom of heaven is for the poor and common people, not the mighty and wealthy. It is addressed to those who live righteous and behave merciful, whether they are highly educated or not. The idea that education shapes a good character is universal. All civilizations in the world emphasized on educating their people:

The need for education was no less true for the Israelites than for any of the peoples of the ancient world. In fact, the Old Testament record indicates repeatedly that the success of the Hebrew community and the continuity of its culture were conditioned by the knowledge of and obedience to God’s revealed law ( Joshua 1:6-8 ). Thus, to ensure their prosperity, growth, and longevity as the people of Yahweh, Israel’s mandate was one of education — diligently teaching their children to love God, and to know and obey his statues and ordinances ( Deut 6:1-9 ).

Andrew Hill: Education in Bible Times. In: Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids (MI): 1996.

So in contrast, the beginning of the sermon of the mount emphasizes on the opposite. It is mentioned that those who are spiritually and materially poor are favored. Is this a contradiction to the Israelite maxims. In fact, it is not! Two things have to be mentioned in this context. First, the New Testament does no less propagate education: “Likewise, the New Testament record links the success of the church of Jesus Christ, as a worshiping community of ‘salt and light’ reaching out to a dark world, to the teaching of sound doctrine (John 13:34-35 ; Eph 4:14 ; 1 Tim 1:10 ; Titus 2:1 ).” [Hill, 1996] In fact, the whole Christian missionary work is meant to be education: teaching people the gospel. Second, Jesus mentions in the sermon of the Mount as well that he did not come to turn over the Law of the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. So his mission should not be seen contrary to Judaism, but as an effort to promote Jewish ideals to the common non-elitarian people of his country. He was not the first one who was promoting a Jewish way of life built on sincerity and humble living. There were kind a few penitential preachers, like John the Baptist, living as ascetics and offering baptism as a way to clean one’s body from sin, such rituals were practiced for instance by the Essenes.

Whether one is granted to enter heaven or not is not dependent on how well one is able to recite the Scripture, but whether one lived a good life or changed one’s life at some point into a morally good life, regretting one’s mistakes. Those who were merciful to others will also receive God’s mercy!

Therefore, it is nonsense to say that a religious authority automatically has a closer connection to God, just because the person is a religious authority, and thus more knowledgeable in Scripture. Of course, religious authorities can have very deep insights and they can become a good example to everyone. For instance, there are some rabbis whose talks I really love to listen, because they teach a lot of wisdom. There are also some very wise Buddhist monks whose Dharma talks I listen, same as some Christian priests. But we also cannot say that the heaven is not for them, claiming them to be too educated for heaven. What was meant to say is that societal rank does not matter to follow God’s plan. He did not reveal Himself to a few chosen one’s but to the whole people of Israel. And from of Israel, the testimony was transported to all peoples! Therefore, the heaven is for everyone who has mercy and compassion, no matter which religion one follows. God loves all his children and every human-being is a child of God!

Timo Schmitz, 29 September 2022.

Quote from my book

Finally, I think that God is universal. This means, it does not matter whether I read the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Pali-Canon, or the Daodejing, I can realize Him through all of these religious scriptures in a certain way. Though the question whether I certainly realize Him lies in whether I understand the Good, so by only reading it without further useful thoughts, I might have certainly seen Him but not in a certain way so that I get certainty and possibly through ignorance I might see a lie – such as extremists do – even though He reveals in front of everyone. 

Timo Schmitz: The Self-Reflecting State. Trier & Vachendorf: Graf Berthold Verlag, 2022. ISBN: 9783987561108.

The indictment against Socrates

We have different sources, giving an account on Socrates’ trial. Of course, Plato’s Apology is not a historical document, but a philosophical one. It does not want to give a one hundred percent historical accuracy, but tries to explain the case of Socrates and his philosophical standards. He even goes further and spins a tetralogy around Socrates’ trial starting with a meeting between Socrates and Euthyphro in front of the court (in the Euthyphro), then goes to the trial (Socrates’ defense in the Apology), after that Crito tries to free him from prison, but Socrates refuses to leave (in the Crito) and then finally, we have the report of his death (in the Phaedo). Every of these works has a philosophical content on his own, and none of them should be seen as a historical narrative.

Now why was Socrates’ put on trial? We learn it in Euthyphro 3b, where Socrates says: “For he says I am a maker of gods; and because I make new gods and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he [i.e. Meletus] says.” [Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1. Translated by Harold North Fowler. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1966.] So this is the indictment, the actual reason why he had to come to court. But to Euthyphro’s question, why there is an indictment against him, Socrates replies “For he [i.e. Meletus] says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who those are who corrupt them. He must be a wise man; who, seeing my lack of wisdom and that I am corrupting his fellows, comes to the State, as a boy runs to his mother, to accuse me.” [Euthyphro, 2c, transl. Fowler] But why are both things mentioned separately? In contrast, in Apology 24b f., “it [i.e. the charge] states that Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings.” [transl. Fowler] At first, the order is interesting here. The indictment is also mentioned in Xenophon’s apology, but unlike Xenophon, Plato first mentioned that Socrates corrupted the youth and then goes to the actual charge of asebeia. [Hartmut Erbse: Die Nachrichten von Anklage und Verteidigung des Sokrates. Hermes 132 (2), 2004, 129-140. Cited from p. 132] So at first, we can assume that Socrates was put to court, because of asebeia, which was a serious crime in Athens back then, but then there is the mentioning of the corruption of the youth. However, we have no actual other case which incites that there was such a crime in Athens. This is why Socrates’ trial seems to be unique to some. So is the corruption of the youth really part of the indictment or does it have another meaning? Because Athens was a democracy back then and the city state had a rule of law, so it was impossible to invent a case. Fuhrmann asserts that perhaps it was possible to mention further deplorable activities, which also were seen as a danger for the community, following the actual allegation of asebeia. [Fuhrmann, 2015: 67 f. In: Platon: Apologie des Sokrates/ Kriton. Übersetzung, Anmerkungen und Nachwort von Manfred Fuhrmann. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2015.]

Xenophon refrains in his Apology from analyzing the background of the lawsuit. One reason might be that he was not able to do so, since he was not present during the crucial years, and furthermore, he lacked the necessary material. [Erbse, 2004: 129] Concerning the accusations against him, Xenophon’s Socrates assures in Chapter 1 that he made the usual sacrifices on festivals and memorial days, and that his daimonion is nothing more than an allusion to a certain saying, and thus is treated like an ordinary mantic voice. [Erbse, 2004: 129] In Chapter 2, the prosecutor claims that Socrates disturbed the relationship between fathers and sons. Here, Xenophon’s answer that he rather confined the madness to the actual cases. [ibid.] We see that Socrates first tries to explain in depth why the actual indictment, which was a serious issue, was not true. Only in a second step, he explains why he cannot be a threat to the youth, but not in such a deep way, as done before. Therefore, it seems that Fuhrmann has a point. The mentioning that he corrupts the youth rather should undermine that Socrates’ activities were seriously dangerous for the society. Especially given the background that the Peloponnesian War and the tyrannical rule just ended years before, the case was a very emotional matter. And the Athenian citizens were very concerned about the education of their sons, it was important to make them virtuous men. [Timo Schmitz: Warum wurde Sokrates angeklagt? (Euthyphron 3b, Apologie 19b). 10 April 2022, updated 10 August 2022. https://schmitztimo.wordpress.com/2022/04/10/warum-wurde-sokrates-angeklagt-euthyphron-3b-apologie-19b/, retrieved on 11 August 2022.]

This would clearly explain why on the one hand, the corruption of the youth and the case of asebeia are not mentioned completely together, when Euthyphro asks about the indictment. When Socrates first explains that they try him for corrupting the youth, Euthyphro must have been surprised and asked “But why are you charged? What is your alleged crime?”. Or as he does it: How do you corrupt the youth? And then, Socrates reveals the actual indictment why he is brought to court. The same also goes to Apology 19b, where the rumors turning around Socrates are cited: He is researching nature (which hints to asebeia) and teaches others therein. Through allegedly teaching them rhetorical skills to turn around the truth, we can see that he is depicted as a Sophist and has the potential to corrupt the society, but the youth is not explicitly mentioned. (Though the asebeia is not explicitly mentioned as well, but anyone who was researching natural phenomena was in danger to be accused of trying to deconstruct the cosmic order, so it is well included.)

Despite Fuhrmann, also other modern scholars seem to share such views. For instance, Hartmut Erbse wrote in a research paper that Socrates was put to court for asebeia, while he does not mention the corruption of the youth at all.  [see Hartmut Erbse: Parmenides und Sokrates bei Platon: Ein literaturgeschichtlicher Versuch. Hermes, 126 (1), 1998, 15-30. The charge against Socrates is discussed on p. 25.] It is noteworthy that since neither Plato nor Xenophon are completely historical on Socrates’ trial that we also do not have the exact wording of the charge against Socrates. Stenzel, according to Schweingruber, assumes that it was written in the indictment that Socrates conducted asebeia through introducing new gods while not believing in the official ones, propagating a daimonion, and teaching all of it to the youth. (Freely translated from Ancient Greek by me.) [Fritz Schweingruber: Sokrates und Epiktet. Hermes, 78 (1), 1943, 52-79. Cited from p. 60.] Here we also see that the actual charge was asebeia, while there was also other behavior mentioned which undermines it. But this is only a reconstruction. Also K. v. Fritz did not mention the corruption of the youth in his analysis, but mentioned that Socrates was charged for asebeia for introducing new gods, which referred to the Socratic daimonion and which the accusers took as allegation to construct the trial. [K. v. Fritz: Zur Frage der Echtheit der xenophantischen Apologie des Sokrates. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge 80 (1), 1931, 36-68. Cited from pp. 54 & 56.]

To put it in a nutshell, Socrates was charged for asebeia. The written indictment itself also probably mentioned acts which were attached to it, and which were condemned. However, they were no separate point of charge and therefore, the mentioning of Plato that Socrates corrupted the youth, when he let Socrates cite his accusation, is only a condemnation attached to the charge, but not the charge itself.

Timo Schmitz, 2 September 2022

Socrates’ exalted spirit

Socrates: “Well, gentlemen, those who instructed the witnesses that they must bear false witness against me, perjuring themselves to do so, and those who were won over to do this must feel in their hearts a guilty consciousness of great impiety and iniquity; but as for me, why should my spirit be any less exalted now than before my condemnation, since I have not been proved guilty of having done any of the acts mentioned in the indictment?”

Xenophon, Apology, 24. Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Vol. 4: Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology. Translated by E.C. Merchant & O.J. Todd. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1979.

After Socrates was sentenced to death, he remarked the words quoted above and made clear that though he was sentenced in a trial, this does not convert a lie into a truth, and therefore, though he was pleaded guilty, it does not make him guilty, as he was not actually proved guilty. Because no one could prove that he really worshipped new gods, so those who pleaded for guilty could not do so reasonably, as no proofs showed up. Therefore, they must have done it for an aversion against Socrates himself and not for what they charged him, and by doing so, they disrespected both, the laws and the gods. But why should Socrates, who did not do any wrong, feel worse after the trial, as the gods know that he did no wrong, and he himself knows it as well.

Since Socrates believes in the cosmic order, an unjust act on Earth and the consequence out of it has to be accepted, as disrespecting the Athenian law by fleeing from prison would question the whole order and its laws. As is pointed out in Plato’s Crito, one shall never answer injustice with injustice. Anyways, one is not to act against the cosmic order and the very God who according to Xenophon always encouraged Socrates to do the right thing, and according to Plato always warned Socrates to do the wrong thing. And according to Plato, this divine voice (daimonion) kept calm during the trial, which proves that Socrates did not do any wrong, but that he did the right thing, and so he can accept his fate without any worry, while those who knowingly bore a false witness against him have to handle the consequence, their guilty conscience. They have to live with what they have done: they harmed the society by knowingly sentencing an innocent person, and by doing so, they acted against the cosmic order and its law. Therefore, Socrates correctly comes to the conclusion:

“But further, my spirit need not be less exalted because l am to be executed unjustly; for the ignominy of that attaches not to me but to those who condemned me.”

Xenophon, Apology, 26, transl. Merchant & Todd.

Timo Schmitz, 1 September 2022

[朝鲜民主主义人民共和国的宗教情况] 朝鲜宗教的概括(二):基督教

作者:Timo Schmitz (德国)

在朝鲜民主主义人民共和国的基督教徒很少。Alton和Chidley建议朝鲜有超过40万基督徒,但我认为这个估计太高了。我认为根据我自己的评估,20,000 名基督徒是一个现实的数字,最多 50,000 人。原因之一是基督教几乎只存在于平壤市。平壤市以外没有基督教社区,各省也没有人对基督教有知识。一些朝鲜归国者在国外接受了基督教。所以,在边境地区可能生活着一些非法基督徒,但只是极少数。我想几百个信徒是现实的。似乎所有基督徒都在国外受洗,地下教会并不存在。(Seliger, 2013年) 关于有多少基督徒被关押在朝鲜的流传数字并不可靠,因为不清楚这些估计值是如何计算的。虽然基督徒是朝鲜受迫害最严重的宗教团体,该国境内仍有合法建立的基督教机构。

朝鲜基督教联盟代表朝鲜民主主义人民共和国的基督新教徒。朝鲜有長老宗和循道宗的信徒。其实金日成家中的先人信了長老宗。在1946年成立了,这个组织在 1960 年消失,可是1974 年突然在一次被建立了。(Daily NK, 2015年) 其实满载1974年,朝鲜进行了改革,宗教活动合法化,并被组织成伞式组织。朝鲜基督教联盟经营两个教堂。教区居民是真正的基督徒,并积极实践他们的信仰。(Schmitz, 2021年) 因此,他们不被允许成为执朝鲜劳动党的成员,而是经常在社会民主党中组织起来。已经与韩国代表团举行联合会议,一起举行礼拜和唱赞美诗。(Daily NK, 2017年)

许多新教信徒似乎来自精英阶层,而普通的朝鲜人不知道他们的活动。一个指标是该组织及其教会在朝鲜的普通出版物中几乎没有提及。此外,政党控制成员资格和教堂服务出席率。(Tan, 2015年) 朝鲜严格禁止在未经国家同意的情况下建立宗教社区和任何形式的传教活动。(Schmitz, 2021年) 朝鲜基督教联盟官方的目标包括保护基督徒的权利和自由,与社会团体和政党交往,参与国家繁荣发展,为国家统一服务,为世界和平与正义工作,以及为家庭教会培训领袖。(韩国民族文化百科字典, 2009年) Seliger (2013年)假设朝鲜本身在边境城镇建立家庭教会,以便控制宗教活动。这样政府和执政党的好处也应该在敬拜中宣扬。我认为通过这种方式应该确保对政府的忠诚,同时朝鲜尝试对宗教进行小范围的开放。因此,朝鲜基督教联盟不是非政治性的,并支持政府的官方路线。金日成说了宗教是一种反动的、不科学的世界观。 所以官方的国家意识形态与基督教教义是不相容的。(韩国民族文化百科字典, 2009年) 但是政府经常在公开场合强调,基督徒为祖国做了很多事情。(也看Seliger, 2013年) 2018年4月27日,朝韩两国新教代表人发表了《板门店宣言》。(基督教日报, 2018年)

朝鲜基督教联盟的平壤神学学校从1972年到1995年教了長老宗。1995年南朝鲜的基督教大韩监理会(循道宗)帮助神学校的运作。所以我认为这个学校现在为循道宗顺应。

朝鲜天主教协会代表朝鲜的基督教天主教的信徒。它在1988年成立了。1980年代前天主教在朝鲜不合法了。国内的天主教不是罗马化而朝鲜化的。朝鲜不是唯一的非罗马教会,世界上还有其他国家拥有自己的各种天主教。2018年,金正恩邀请天主教教皇进行正式访问。(BBC, 2018年) 朝鲜约有3,000名天主教徒和一座天主教堂。(YNA, 2018年) 周末,大约有 70 至 80 名天主教徒聚集在教堂,在重大节日期间,会众有大约 200 名信徒参加教堂礼拜。(ibid.) 参加教堂的人是真正的信徒,没有演员。1949年在朝鲜最后一位罗马化主教洪龙浩消失了。直到今天,他的命运仍然未知。

只有那些具有罗马天主教背景的家庭才被允许重新加入宗教,并且只有这些家庭的后裔才能成为天主教徒。 不接纳新成员。朝鲜政府还派了几名学生去罗马学习天主教。这可能是 2010 年代放松政策和改革的一部分。

平壤贞柏寺院是朝鲜民主主义人民共和国唯一的俄罗斯东正教教堂。它由朝鲜正教委员会运营。每周六和周日定期举行服务。 尽管有四名朝鲜人被派往莫斯科学习东正教神学,朝鲜当地没有东正教信徒。参加教堂礼拜的人大多是居住在平壤的俄罗斯人。德国媒体称,这四名学生在被选中受洗之前曾为朝鲜情报部门工作。据报道,朝鲜正教委员会会长一开始很难接受基督教,但他别无选择。

自 2019 年以来,朝鲜再次缓慢关闭并扭转改革。在政府看来,与西方的和解似乎失败了。我担心这也会使基督徒的处境再次恶化。

那朝鲜的基督徒需要什么?他们需要更多的国际支持。事实上,帮助基督徒坚定信念是不可能的,因为与走私日常用品不同,凡是与传教工作有关的事情都会受到严厉的惩罚。我理解朝鲜对基督教的强烈不信任,因为有很多基督教组织对朝鲜极端负面。然而,使基督教合法化并允许其传播以建立社会主义基督教社区是可能的。例如,中国有很多社会主义基督徒认为反共帝国主义与基督教是不相容的,因为基督教教义是社会正义,而新殖民主义阻止社会正义。中国的《三自宣言》为爱国的基督徒开辟了道路,他们对西方的理想感到失望,但对基督教的教义却没有。吴耀宗认识到基督教社会教义与社会主义是相辅相成的,基督教可以为建设新中国作出重要的贡献。朝鲜可以以此为例。 朝鲜的基督教机构必须自由化。他们要能接受爱国主义和社会主义,可是他们也要能制定出自己的国家变体并在国际话语中确立它。朝鲜必须允许分发圣经,并为信徒提供参加圣经学习小组的机会。同时,必须防止外国组织煽动信徒发表政治不和或仇恨言论。因此,朝鲜的基督教组织必须得到加强和民主组织,但同时应继续受到国家保护。

宗教自由是一项基本人权。朝鲜几乎没有基督徒,因为那里没有授予这种人权。继阿富汗之后,朝鲜是基督徒迫害最严重的国家。所以朝鲜基督徒需要我们的团结。在与朝鲜的国际对话中,我们必须明确指出,侵犯人权的行为不容辩论。因此,我们应该为朝鲜祈祷,为基督徒和所有其他在该国因信仰上帝而受到迫害的朝鲜人祈祷。我们必须努力确保每个朝鲜人都能接触到圣经,并确保国家基督教组织民主化,以便教会作为国家与公民社会之间的纽带,能够代表基督徒的利益。中国可以作为一个积极的例子加以强调。 那里的宗教自由是一笔巨大的财富,宗教团体可以贡献自己的利益。 同时,国家是世俗的,不与任何宗教挂钩,并保护其人民免受外国干涉。

文学:

Alton, David & Chidley, Rob: Building Bridges: Is there hope for North Korea ?. Foreword by Baroness Caroline Cox. Oxford: Lion Books, 2013.

BBC: North Korea’s Kim Jong-un invites Pope Francis to Pyongyang. BBC, 2018年10月9日. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45796303,2022年7月29日看到了.

Daily NK: 조선그리스도교연맹 창립 (1946. 11. 28). Daily NK, 2005年12月26日. https://www.dailynk.com/조선그리스도교연맹-창립-1946-11-28/,2022年7月29日看到了.

Daily NK: “北 조선그리스도연맹과 협력은 종교탄압 돕는 것”. Daily NK, 2007年2月9日. https://www.dailynk.com/北-조선그리스도연맹과-협력은-종교/,2022年7月29日看到了.

Der Spiegel: Kim Jong-Il and Religion North Korea Builds an Orthodox Church. Der Spiegel, 2006年8月11日. https://www.spiegel.de/international/kim-jong-il-and-religion-north-korea-builds-an-orthodox-church-a-431310.html,2022年7月31日看到了.

Embassy of Russia to the DPRK: Orthodox Church of the Live-Giving Trinity in Pyongyang. 该 URL 不再可用.

Schmitz, Timo: Temples and Sacred Sites in North Korea #8: Christian Churches in Pyongyang (25 October 2019). In: Timo Schmitz: Selected English Articles, 2018-2019. Berlin: epubli, 2021.

Seliger, Bernhard: Nordkorea. Die weltweite Situation der christlichen Minderheiten. Argumente und Materialien der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit 8, 2013, 59-64.

Tan, Morse: North Korea, International Law and the Dual Crises: Narrative and Constructive Engagement. London/ New York: Routledge, 2015.

YNA: N. Korea’s sole Catholic church draws 70 to 80 Christians on weekends: research. Yonhap News Agency, 2018年10月19日. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20181019008900315, 2022年7月29日看到了.

권오국: 조선카톨릭협회(朝鮮카톨릭協會). 한국민족문화대백과사전, 2013년. http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Item/E0073882, 2022年7月31日看到了.

박용국: NCCK·조그련, 남북 공동기도문으로 기도한다. 기독일보, 2018년. https://www.christiandaily.co.kr/news/80608, 2022年7月29日看到了.

유동열: 조선그리스도교연맹 (朝鮮─敎聯盟). 한국민족문화대백과사전, 2009년. http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Item/E0066464, 2022年7月29日看到了.

2022年8月19日

Socrates: Serving the community

“Part of the fascination of Plato’s Apology consists in the fact that it presents a man who takes extraordinary steps throughout his life to be of the greatest possible value to his community but whose efforts, far from earning him the gratitude and honour he thinks he deserves, lead to his condemnation and death at the hands of the very people he seeks to serve.”

Richard Kraut: Socrates. Encyclopedia Britannica, no date.

Truly, Socrates wants to help to improve his community’s life, but he only makes himself enemies. He showed for instance, that the politicians think that they are very wise, but in fact they are not. One, though not mentioned by name, is extremely outstanding in Plato’s work, the democratic politician Anytus, who is also referred to in Apology 21b ff.:

“I went to one of those who had a reputation for wisdom, thinking that there, if anywhere, I should prove the utterance wrong and should show the oracle ‘This man is wiser than I, but you said I was wisest.’ So examining this man – for I need not call him by name, but it was one of the public men with regard to whom I had this kind of experience, men of Athens – and conversing with him, this man seemed to me to seem to be wise to many other people and especially to himself, but not to be so; and then I tried to show him that he thought he was wise, but was not. As a result, I became hateful to him and to many of those present […].”

Translated by Harold North Fowler. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1966.

So here we have on the one hand the masses who have a high regard of that very politician on the one hand, and Socrates who debunked him. So, through examining the politician, he fulfilled a divine mission in showing that the great men who think that they are wise, were not wise at all, but only seemed to be wise. We can use a generalization here, because Apology, 22a writes “those who had the most reputation seemed to me to be almost the most deficient, as I investigated at the god’s behest, and others who were of less repute seemed to be superior men in the matter of being sensible” [ibid.], so we have to assume that this does not only go to Anytus, since Socrates explains that the same happened to him, when conversing with the other politicians as well: those who thought of themselves in the highest esteem, turned out to be of the least competence in terms of wisdom, according to Socrates. Therefore, we can say that Socrates himself had a low esteem towards politics.

Therefore, we can see a critical stance of politics in this passage, as the politicians, such as Anytus, are rather destroying the well-being of the state (which Plato shows through Socrates’ execution) than to make it better. So Socrates is tired of politics:

“Socrates […] in the Apology, as Foucault points out, describes his divine mission of speaking the truth to his fellow citizens as turning away from politics. (31c-32a)”

Francisco J. Gonzalez: Socrates on Philosophy and Politics: Ideas y valores LXI (149), 2012, 103-123, cited from p. 120.

But of course, this does not mean that Plato’s philosophy is not political, and even further, it does not mean that Socrates, even though he refused to take part in politics was not political at all:

“It should also be said that to speak of a tension between philosophy and politics is not to deny that philosophy is inherently political in the specific sense in which Socratic philosophy is presented as political in the Apology and the Gorgias, i.e., as benefitting others as well as oneself and thereby representing a sort of rule over oneself as well as over others.”

Gonzalez, 2012: 109.

In contrast to the majority which was ignorant and blind, Socrates was willing to fulfill his mission, but to do so, he had to educate the people in reflecting of what they thought to know, whether their assumed knowledge was true or not. Furthermore, we can see the clear opposition of Plato for the governmental system of Athens in this work. Athens was a democratic state in which every male citizen, no matter how wise or stupid he was, could participate. For Socrates and Plato, this was probably a pure horror, as both were in favor for an oligarchy: only those who are worthy should reign. Plato undermines it in his Republic with the philosopher king in which he proposes an expertocratic model, where only the very experts are allowed to make decisions so that the best outcome is ensured, while the populace has to be restrained. (Though his Republic is not really meant to be that political, but the state is only an allegory to explain the soul.) And if it was not pure horror to Plato as we take too much of his political views from The Republic, then at least, we can say that he saw no benefit in democracies. Trabbatoni writes on Plato’s dialogue The Statesman:

“In this dialogue democracy is said to cause little good and little evil and, because of this, to be not only far better than tyranny, but also than other imperfect forms of lawless constitution (303b). According to Plato, the law is precisely the corrective device in order to avoid this danger.”

Franco Trabattoni: Essays on Plato’s Epistemology. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2016, p. 285

Thus, Plato wants to show through the figure of Socrates in his defense speech (which is not the historical speech, but Plato’s own masterpiece though parts of it were probably said in a similar way by Socrates himself in his actual speech) that the democratic politicians, such as Anytus, and the democratic system does not bring forth decision-makers with the best competences and capabilities, but rather imposers which defile the society: they think of themselves to be extraordinary wise and even seem to be so to a majority, but this is nothing than an outside appearance. Plato actually takes up this very issue when he talks of the “just man” in The Republic. [To understand the issue turning around the “just man”, see Pierre Grimes: Wisdom Literature in the Platonic Tradition – Lecture 61: Plato’s Republic (Part 1). Opening Mind Academy, 1997; see also Timo Schmitz: On Plato’s Good and the tripartite soul. In: Timo Schmitz: A Divinely Way to Philosophy, Vol. 1. Trier & Vachendorf: Graf Berthold Verlag, 2022.] Thus, Apology also opens up a very important demand of Plato: justice. It is not an easy issue in Plato’s philosophy, because Socrates acts just by obeying the law and following the verdict. On the other hand, the verdict as given by the Athenians is not just. Yet, Plato makes clear in the Crito that injustice ought not to be answered with injustice. This very thought is also taken up in the sermon of the mount:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

Matthew 5:38-42, KJV.

Finally, Socrates’ fate can also be clearly found in the Analogy of the Cave of Plato’s Republic, where the one who saw the truth returns to the cage and gets lynched when he let others know his insights, since they know nothing but the shadows which they already take to be true. So even the greatest man who serve the community might receive injustice by their community members, while some of those who conduct injustice (such as Anytus did) enjoy a great reputation. The ones we regard to be the wisest are not always the wisest, and the ones of who we think in the best way, are not always the best. Some great men only receive their honor long after their time. But also the great men were not flawless: Socrates was perceived to be arrogant by some, his behavior in trial had to lead to his execution if we follow Xenophon’s Apology, in which Socrates refuses to demand for a penalty, as this would mean to him that he was guilty. (Xenophon, Apology 23) He could have probably saved his life by demanding a penalty after he was convicted guilty, as his refusal to demand a penalty on his own led to the conviction of the penalty demanded by his accusers. 

Timo Schmitz, 17 August 2022

See also:

Warum wurde Sokrates angeklagt? (Euthyphron 2d, Apologie 19b) (in German)

Äwablekj äwa Platon (in Plautdietsch)

Apologie von Sokrates, 17a – 28a (in Plautdietsch)

Which opinions should we take into consideration?

“Socrates: But, my dear Crito, why do we care so much for what most people think? For the most reasonable men, whose opinion is more worth considering, will think that things were done as they really will be done. […] By taking up first what you say about opinions and asking whether we were right when we always used to say that we ought to pay attention to some opinions and not to others? […] But it used to be said, I think, by those who thought they were speaking sensibly, just as I was saying now, that of the opinions held by men some ought to be highly esteemed and others not. In God’s name, Crito, do you not think this is correct?”

Plato: Crito, 44c; 46c-e. Translated by Harold North Fowler. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1966.

Too often we take into considerations the thoughts of others and evaluate their opinion, and we are afraid of the opinion of others, but why do we care at all? Why do we care so much for what others think of us? Furthermore, if we have a knowledge of something, it is unlikely that we will be appreciated for it, as nowadays there are many people who are full of envy and behave jealous. They will tell us that we are wrong without having a single argument; they will talk bad of us and as they have no argument they start judging our outside appearance. And if you philosophise and share your results with others, you might just want the best for them and hope they can reflect as well, but instead, some might do not see our goodness, same as the Athenians did not see Socrates’ good intention. He wanted to make his contemporary society reflect and instead of being thankful, the Athenians executed him.

Though we are not executed for our opinions in Western societies today, sharing our reflections also indirectly makes others feel stupid. They see that they did not have the insights, though they have the capability to reflect themselves and feel ashamed that they did not use this capability. Some might have other insights. Their reflections led them to other conclusions, and this is perfectly fine, we can discuss and argue with them. But many people today do not really want to reflect and discuss, they do not want to seriously engage in discussions, and so they try anything to delegitimize us. But we should not hold these opinions in high esteem as they are not constructive. Some even feel to be above others and they do not see the necessity to engage in fruitful discussions, so every argument which speaks against them is seen as a threat, as again this makes them feel stupid in front of others. But if they are not really interested in a serious discussion, should we regard their opinion in high esteem? Should we value ignorance so much?

Even if we are a minority voice, no one can cancel our thoughts and no one can force us to think or agree to what others think if we come to another conclusion. And if our reflections make other people feel stupid, we should not take the blame on us. Of course, we should take all opinions into consideration to be able to engage in discussion, but when we see that an opinion is not directed towards pushing forward a discussion, but directed at us as a person to make us look smaller (just that others feel in a higher place and are able to hide their feeling that they feel stupid in front of us), or if people are arrogant and ignorant in general towards us, then we should not take their opinion into consideration and not care of what they think, no matter whether they are a minority or a majority.

Thus, we should take into consideration all opinions which are directed towards a fruitful discussion, but not take into consideration opinions directed towards us to let us down!

Timo Schmitz, 16 August 2022

We are always received by God, because God is Infinite Love

“Can you believe that when the poor sinner longs to return, longs to forsake his sins, the Lord sternly withholds him from coming to His feet in repentance? Away with such thoughts! […] The great heart of Infinite Love is drawn toward the sinner with boundless compassion.”

Ellen G. White: Steps to Christ, 1892, Chapter 6.

Today we always judge people and remind them of their past mistakes, but we forget, that we – ourselves – are not flawless, as only God is perfect. This universe is that-which-is-good-in-itself, or to put it in a Hebrew term, it was created ki-tov. But being good does not mean that one is goodness oneself, as only God is absolute goodness. And this means that no one, really no one, is spared from committing sins. While God is infinite love and receives everyone, why do human-beings blame others and point to all their wrongs? In fact, those who blame and point out to the wrongs of others are not free from wrongs themselves. So instead of being hypocritical, we should follow the example which is taught in the Bible, where the sinner receives blessings and is able to start a new life.

We shall also follow the example as taught in other religions as well, such as in the Buddhist sutras, where we are taught to be compassionate towards other sentient-beings even if we regard them as our enemies. Anger is our enemy and not the person, as Thubten Zopa Rinpoche teaches. And according to the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra, we shall all revere our enemies as we revere our parents. [Respect all as Buddha. General Dharma Lecture, 29th Day of the 5th Lunar Month, 1982, Haein-sa. http://www.buddhism.org/respect-all-as-buddha/, retrieved on 6 July 2022.] So we should be an inclusive society. And even if one feels not accepted by others, there is one who always accepts us: our Creator. He loves us unconditionally! Therefore, never think that it is too late to change something in your life, He always opens His arms for you!

Timo Schmitz, 15 August 2022

Overcoming our alienation with God

“The whole heart must be yielded to God, or the change can never be wrought in us by which we are to be restored to His likeness. By nature we are alienated from God.”

Ellen G. White: Steps to Christ, 1892, Chapter 5.

This is the actual meaning of the story around Adam and Eve: Human-beings repelled God from the paradise as it is written in the Zohar, and through this act, human-beings lost the touch with their Creator. [see the explanation by Daniel Matt in Gnosis – Secrets of the Kabbalah. Uploaded by Raphael Panameno, 22 March 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppT8JK1loSg, retrieved on 9 June 2018.] To become blessed, we need to get over this alienation and get in touch with God again. Today’s problems in the world show how much man alienated from God’s plan. And God has a plan for us, as He wants us to repair the world (tikkun olam). [cp. Isaac Luria’s Creation Myth; Jill Zimmerman: Isaac Luria’s Creation myth. Sefaria Source Sheet, 10 February 2015.https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/7669, retrieved on 29 July 2018.] Human-beings were created in His likeness (Genesis 1:27), though we are not the Divine, we have a divine nature in us, so we can overcome the alienation, if we strive for enlightenment.

Timo Schmitz, 14 August 2022

Timo Schmitz being published in Susi Bock’s “The Short of It”

I am so proud to be published with four micropoems in “The Short of it”. Thank you, Susi for making this possible.

I Write Her

Zoltan Tasi – Unsplash

No one can hurt you again

I feel you in my veins
One touch ahead,
Don’t get mad,
I protect you! 

Toxic or not?

We are never on the same level,
yet we need each other so much,
is it toxic or did we lose sense
– for compromises? 

I want to listen

I want to listen to you,
I want to get along with you,
I always wish you just the best,
I hope this connection forever it lasts,
yet we are strangers…

Becoming and Deceasing

Rain is dropping on my head,
whether happy, whether sad,
rain is light and has no mood,
life giving on the earth clued,
but coming together, destructive,
dropping all life abductive.

~~~

Timo Schmitz is a language fanatic, philosopher, journalist, poet, and book author from Germany, where he lives and studies. He authored poetry books in German, English, and…

View original post 53 more words