Lord

Of the thousands of mystic, archetypal and paradigmatic individuals in human history, it would be a safe bet for one to state that Socrates was one of the most distinguished, yet also most seemingly paradoxical ones whose view of life and teachings varied significantly for to one person to another. Although he was known to have stood clearly for his values and fought relentlessly against others; namely those of the Sophists , I daresay that even one with much experience in the field of philosophy might still, at first sight, find some of his statements to be self-contradictory. One such example would be his simultaneous belief in the nonexistence of weakness of will and how that individuals who do evil things do them against their will or nature; in other words, everyone believes what they do is for the best.

While I should be limiting the purpose of this essay to merely explaining the meaning behind Socrates' claims, I shall delve into a broader level and try to lighten, if not eliminate what seems controversial to you.

You might have taken notice, dear reader, of what I had meant earlier by paradoxical: one might almost think, at this point, that the above-mentioned Socratic reasoning was actually based on the principles of moral relativism, one of the values he spent his life's energy fighting against. Doubtlessly, it was not. However, I urge you to believe me when I say that such an assumption is totally plausible, for I had myself experienced that feeling when I first read about the philosopher. You might be already asking yourself such questions as: "Is that a generic thesis?" "If so, how does the sophos explain some of the more critical cases, such as murder crimes, drugs, and such?" and "Based on what kind of foundation or reasoning does Socrates make such a bold statement?"

When you find his logic unreasonable, know that it is only the natural, intuitive human instinct at work. Some would, I think, be almost more eager to opt for the Ð''moral relativism' mentality than supporting this strange theorem. Allow me to give a simple example to prove this fact:

During the Third Crusade (1187-1192), Christian Kings lead their vast armies across Europe in order to relieve the sacred lands from Saracen occupation. Along the way, much of the civilized Middle-East, warlike castles and peaceful or neutral towns alike were pillaged, shattered and burnt to the ground, their peoples mercilessly slaughtered and raped, all in the name of the Cause. Picture a crusading paladin coated in steel plate mail in all his "might, glory and nobility", riding hard and fast with his regiment, charging into a line of battle-hardened Saracen infantry.

Wouldn't it be quite logical for me to say that in the knight's mind, it was a right action to kill Saracens and vice versa? I'm inclined to think that it would make much senseÐ'... to a common man such as myself.

However, we must know that one is not remembered throughout the ages for being a common man. That leads us to believe that Socrates was above us in many ways, that is, including his logical thinking and method of reasoning.

When Socrates spoke of the idea that no human willingly commits evil acts, he had already abandoned the idea moral relativism, as he did with all Sophist principles. Furthermore, he rejects and denies the existence of a weakness of will, that is to say, consciously choosing a short-term benefit while knowing that it will bring great -and perhaps fatal- harm in the long run, say, uncontrolled alcoholism for stress-relief, or drug addiction.

Actually,