I am reading Classical Greek literature and feel like an idiot. Take "Charmides" by Platon, which is universally considered a deep philosophical dialogue on the soul and on moderation. For me it is more about a band of degenerate pederasts. Judge by yourself: The story opens with Socrates returning from his Army service shortly after the Battle of Potidaea, and the first thing he does is to look at his old haunts.
So I went into the palaestra of Taureas and there I found a number of persons, most of whom I knew, but not all. My visit was unexpected, and no sooner did they see me entering than they saluted me from afar on all sides; and Chaerephon, who is a kind of madman, started up and ran to me, seizing my hand, and saying, How did you escape, Socrates?
You see, I replied, that here I am.
There was a report, he said, that the engagement was very severe, and that many of our acquaintance had fallen.
That, I replied, was not far from the truth.
I suppose, he said, that you were present.
I was.
I took the place which he assigned to me, and I told them the news from the army, and answered their several enquiries.
Then, in my turn, began to make enquiries about matters at home - about the state of philosophy, and about any new young boys. I asked whether any of them were remarkable for wisdom or beauty, or both. Critias, glancing at the door, invited my attention to some boys who were coming in, and talking noisily to one another, followed by a crowd. Of the beauties, Socrates, he said, I fancy that you will soon be able to form a judgment. For those who are just entering are the advanced guard of the great beauty, as he is thought to be, of the day, and he is likely to be not far off himself. ...at that moment, when I saw him coming in, I confess that I was quite astonished at his beauty and stature; all the world seemed to be enamoured of him; amazement and confusion reigned when he entered; and a troop of lovers followed him. That grown-up men like ourselves should have been affected in this way was not surprising, but I observed that there was the same feeling among the boys; all of them, down to the very least child, turned and looked at him, as if he had been a statue.
Chaerephon called me and said: What do you think of him, Socrates? Has he not a beautiful face?
Most beautiful, I said.
But you would think nothing of his face, he replied, if you could see his naked form: he is absolutely perfect.
...Call Charmides, and tell him that I want him to come and see a physician about the illness of which he spoke to me the day before yesterday. Then again addressing me, he added: He has been complaining lately of having a headache when he rises in the morning: now why should you not make him believe that you know a cure for the headache?
Why not, I said; but will he come?
What? Socrates de wisest man on Earth loitering in the sports field with old pederasts and impersonating a medical doctor to get into talk and seduce a beautiful boy? In the end, Alitos got so mad at Socrates for having seduced his son that took the risk of sueing Socrates for corrupting the youth (should Socrates been found innocent, Alitos would have been severely punished). The 500 man jury condemned Socrates to death. I would have cast my vote with the majority.
17 comments:
It seems the default settings for humanity include pederasty (as well as a host of other disgusting behaviors-human sacrifice, infanticide, cannibalism...at least the Athenians weren't known for those.) Socrates was notable for pointing out that a much better way to admire the beauty of teenage boys was Platonically (don't know why it's called that, as the same dialogue was reported by Xenophon)-no clue if he walked the talk, or if this novel idea took off after his death.
Here's another weird pederast-philosopher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakim_Bey
B,
Athenians and Greeks in general were hard into infanticide aka exposition, which was the favored population control method (so effective that soon there were almost no Athenians nor Spartans).
Regarding the Platonic paka paka about non-physical love, it is all designed to confuse the parents of the boys sent to Plato's academy, and to seduce the boys themselves.
Socrates arriving home from the Army went directly to the palestra to look for ... Platonic beauty? Nonsense. He was starved for sex.
By the way, having been in similar situation, returning from miluim, the first days are spent in clearing up family problems, work problems, etc. No decent person runs to the poker club or the gay bar.
I knew about the Spartans, but not the Athenians. I doubt the Platonic thing was a sham-everybody in Athens was a pederast, there was no need to fool anyone-Socrates' charge of corrupting the yoofs was moral, not sexual.
Socrates' service as a hoplite was a bit more intense than your milium.
My friend B,
I think that yes, there was a need for the ring of pederasts led by Socrates to fool the Athenian public with that philosophy schtick. Athenians tolerated pederasty if it was done "tastefully" (that is the argument of the Symposium of Plato) and hiddden under the cover of pedagogy and military couching. Socrates had the bad luck of seducing and corrupting the son of that troublemaker Alitos, who was so incensed that assumed the considerable risk of bringing Socrates before a jury. I think "corruption" was meant not only in the political or religious sense (Athenians didnt take their religion thus seriously) but sexual.
J,
Now that I'm in the uncomfortable position of defending creepy dead Greek feigeles, I might as well ride it out. If ALL that Socrates was was a creepy Greek feigele, we wouldn't know of him. His words and reputation would not have endured through the ages. Even in his time, he was known for being a morally upright and hard man-one of his best friends was Xenophon, he was renowned for conducting a fighting retreat during a disastrous Athenian rout, for refusing to join in mob madness during the trial of the generals and during the tyranny of the thirty after Athenian defeat, though it meant risking his life, and for his principled acceptance of his sentence rather than seeking to save his life through escape. Furthermore, there must have been something in his philosophy to make it last through the ages and inspire such a lineage. I mean, three generations and you get Aristotle, Alexander's tutor. That's not to be scoffed at. Then, too, there are many Talmudic figures and utterances which lend themselves to various conjecture-Reish Lakesh and Rabbi Yonatan, all the "women are vessels full of impurities" stuff, yet we look for value there-and find it! Why not with Socrates?
Another thing-the Athenians OCCASIONALLY would go apeshit and start taking their public religion and politics very seriously. Witness how Alcibiades originally got in trouble (which wound up costing them,) or the numerous public trials detailed in Xenophon's Hellenica (which I think you would enjoy immensely.) When I look at Athenian politics, nothing comes to mind more than the decade following the French Revolution. The same hysteria, purges, flashes of brilliance, constant external aggression and instability. Democracy is truly political methamphetamines.
About Socrates's reputation in Athens, it may not have been very good if five hundred randomly selected neighbors sentenced him to death.
Philosophy can be used to confuse and seduce young boys, as the Torah can be used for the same purpose (so I heard about the Rav Moti Alon) and the New Testament (in the Catholic Church). But of course that is not all the story, it has an independent worth and beauty regardless its misuse.
500 randomly selected Athenians sentenced all kinds of people to death-they were fucking bonkers. Look at the trial of the admirals-Athens, in dire straits, fighting for its survival at the conclusion of a 25 year long war against Sparta backed by Persia wins a naval battle, a storm prevents them from recovering the bodies of the Spartan dead, and 500 randomly selected citizens vote to sentence the six admirals in charge to death. Only Socrates' vote of "against" prevents them from executing the sentence, so they retry the next day sans Socrates, and execute them. Then everybody thinks better of it. Or, on the eve of the Sicilian expedition, Alkibiades and his friends run around knocking the peckers off divine statues, so they get together and sentence him to death in absentia, while he's fighting a crucial battle in a war with the fate of Athens in the balance. So, on one hand this kind of mass madness was prevalent, on the other, Socrates probably won a lot of enemies by not joining in.
There doesn't seem to have been any real philosophy before Socrates-he was their Moshe.
Apparently (I am in uncertain grounds in this) Judaism has similar attitude toward homosexuality as classical Greeks in that there is no definition of homosexual identity. The concept does not exist, what exists is homosexual sex (which is allowed or normal among Greeks, but punishable among Hebrews). Homosexuality seems to be considered sex in the wrong place and the wrong timing - but there is no such thing as a homosexual.
Greek sexual and general behavior was detestable, but that certainly is not the whole story. Socrates's circle of pederasts created Western thought - Plato invented the concept that this world is not the real one, we are like shades in a cave, that the real world of pure forms is out there, which is the basis of Christianity and the Islam.
Now, how could they have done this if they were pederasts? Note that the rest of Socrates' character basically involves being a beinoni in the Chasidic sense, a man of self denial, deep thought, disregard for sensuality, etc. Certainly the behavior of his students in the Apology doesn't seem to be that of guys who had been getting their shit pushed in ("serves him right!") From what I know, pederasts are weak and/or predatory. Socrates seems to be neither. Plato, OTOH, has always skeeved me out. Perhaps the above episode is him putting words into Socrates' mouth?
The Jewish/Greek view of homosexuality as something people do, not what they are, seems to be true for many but not all homos. I know good yeshive bochurim who went off the derech because of it. They still love Judaic thought, quote Rashi with affection, hang out with frum friends, but...now, if it was JUST something you do, like eating shrimp, well, shit, I've given up eating treif and it's not that hard when compared to the benefits, though I'm no askete. There is more involved here, I think.
For what it' worth, pederasty was popular among the Jews and Muslims of Andalusian Spain, at least the higher class. There's a good chunk of poetry hinting at it. And the story of David and Jonathan was taken as justification, but Greek literature could not have had a small role. This was one of the Christians' beefs with Judios and Moras. Judio was even an insult that meant "fag" basically.
moros*
"Now, how could they have done this if they were pederasts?"
How? Just like everybody else. I remember having read somewhere that their IQ distribution is normal, so among the perverts there must be more than a few geniuses.
"...pederasts are weak and/or predatory."
That is a modern psychological myth.
But no, you'll not put me in the position of defending their intellectual capabilities or aknowledging their martial qualities. I'll stay in the upper moral ground.
Meh. All parties involved have been dead for 100 generations. What moral high ground? All I'm saying is, where are the pedophile geniuses of the 20th century?
No, my friend. You'll not maneuver me into the position of uncloseting anyone, not even in the improbable situation of having heard rumors of the existence of twisted geniuses like Alan Turing.
I know more about Socrates, Platon and their friends than about my neighbor.They excelled in Athens, which according to Galton was the highest IQ population of all the times. They are dead, but we have not advanced much from the ideas that they discovered, let me repeat, that this valley of tears is NOT the real world and that a world of pure ideas and forms exists hidden by our imperfect reality.
I have not heard this Galton thing. I am not sure why a population which sprung from typical Mediterranean stock (seafarers, fishermen and farmers) would be the highest-IQ population ever.
Turing was a homosexual, not a pedophile, as was (apparently) Newton. Big difference.
Post a Comment