Kamila Alibi 20190697

Film analysis (soviet)

The film takes place in ancient Greece, during the decline of Athens after the disastrous
Peloponnesian War. The oligarchs who came to power found the one responsible for the
defeat in the war. Their choice falls on the teacher Socrates, who repeatedly gave wise
advice, his students met and did not take advantage. The more power Likon has, the more the
sage is oppressed. In the end, a group of dissatisfied and guilty of the truth former elected
representatives gather around the oligarch, who demand that Socrates be executed. The wise
old man is compelled to enter with a reciprocal speech in which his truth does not change.

After the Peloponnesian War, which ended unsuccessfully for Athens, the Spartan
conquerors reshape the established Athenian life in their own way. Democracy collapsed,
power was given into the hands of the oligarchs, among whom is the cruel and quick to
punish Critias. Socrates is accused of having a considerable share of his guilt in the defeat of
Athens. The philosopher Lycon does not get tired of talking about this in public, demanding
to bring Socrates to justice. Critias also has a reason to wish the death of his former teacher,
Socrates is saved only by the location of the Spartan king Pausanias.

After the departure of the enemy troops and the overthrow of the power of tyrants, Lycon
finds allies to accuse Socrates: the mediocre poet Meletus and the wealthy tanner Anita. Both
of them have personal accounts with the sage, who reproached the first for mediocrity, and
the second for greed. Melet files a complaint against Socrates, accusing him of not
recognizing the state gods and spoiling the morals of youth, and demands severe punishment.
Socrates is charged with the fact that Alcibiades, Charmides and Critias, guilty of the
humiliation of Athens, were his students.

But Socrates, with his new principle and as an Athenian citizen engaged in this kind of
instruction, entered, thanks to his personality, in relation to the entire Athenian people, not
only in relation to the mass or the ruling mass, but in a living relation to the spirit of the
Athenian people. The spirit of this people, taken in itself, its state system, its whole life
rested on morality, on religion, and could not exist without this, in itself and for itself,
unshakable. Consequently, since Socrates transferred the truth to the decision of the inner
consciousness, he entered into antagonism to what the Athenian people recognized as right
and true. The accusations brought against him were therefore just.

Socrates is the clearest example of one of the first conflicts in the history of mankind
between humanist-intellectuals ahead of their time and society as a whole. And the first
conflict of this kind, which is quite fully covered by historical sources.
And the very voluntary death of Socrates is the first example in the history of mankind when
an intellectual in conflict with society considered his moral principles more important than
his life. And, in the end, he fixed his moral superiority over society, at least in that he clearly
showed that by depriving an intellectual of the right to teach youth and express his position
on various issues, society is still unable to take away from him the right to manage his life
when (due to public outcry) History is already looking at him with undisguised interest.
The purpose of this work is to carefully analyze the fact that the great humanist Socrates was
convicted and sentenced to death in the most democratic city of Hellas - Athens. Moreover,
this was done not by the hand of tyrants who came to power twice at that time, but by the
hand of a collegiate democratic court - helia, which formally included as many as 6,000
people - a good quarter of all Athenian citizenship.

Socrates was condemned to death not for his political convictions, because he never showed
hostility to democracy, nor disobedience to it; and not out of personal malice he was chosen
as a victim, but only because it was necessary to deal a blow to the adherents of new
religious ideas, and this blow had to be heavy; and it was, of course, the heavier, the higher
the person to whom it was directed stood. Moreover, in the teachings of Socrates there was
an element that was really opposite to the concepts of the entire ancient world. Socrates said
that a person should not unconditionally obey the laws, customs and concepts of his state,
but follow his own thoughts, be guided in his political activity by his own concepts. This
must have seemed especially dangerous to the founders of the new Athenian democracy. She
could not allow a man to have the right to evade his civic duties; could not tolerate a doctrine
that insisted that power should belong only to those who knew the philosophical truth and
that filling positions by lot cast by all citizens (as was done in Athens) was absurd.
Democracy could not allow the citizen to obey, as Socrates publicly spoke of himself, his
inner voice (demon) more than the Athenian government. All these reasons led to the death
of Socrates.
Socrates spoke at the trial not as an accused, but as a teacher, urging his fellow citizens to
value spiritual goods above material ones.
In the first part of the speech, Socrates speaks of his past and present accusers: the first of
them are those people unknown to him who, due to their ignorance, envy or malice, have
spread the fabrications that he is engaged in natural philosophical problems, i.e., that is under
the earth and what is in heaven, and teaches how to present falsehood as truth.

Further, to possible statements that "there is no smoke without fire", Socrates answers in the
sense that many of the citizens revered in the city, whether they be rulers, poets, artisans or
anyone else, disliked him because he subjected their "trial" and revealed their ignorance in
what they considered themselves to be the most knowledgeable.

Socrates then moves on to his new accusers and points out the groundlessness of both points
of their accusation: the corruption of the youth and the non-recognition of the gods. Socrates
says that it is absurd to consider him a corrupter of youth and at the same time admit that all
other citizens, including judges or accusers themselves, do not corrupt anyone. Even if we
assume that he corrupted someone, then it is required to prove that this corruption was
intentional; the involuntary corrupter is not brought to justice, but is instructed and corrected.

Turning to the second point of the accusation, Socrates reveals the inconsistency of the
statements about the "non-recognition of the gods" and the "introduction of new gods."
Rejecting some gods and recognizing others, Socrates notes, does not at all mean being an
atheist, which Meletus accuses him of. And if, Socrates continues, Meletus agrees that
“geniuses I recognize,” and geniuses are the children of the gods, then “what kind of person,
recognizing the children of the gods, will not recognize the gods themselves?”

He was judged, but continued to philosophize, because he considered this a mission that God
entrusted to him and could not renounce what he said or did: “... as long as I have breath and
ability, I will not stop philosophizing, persuading and convincing anyone from you ... saying
the same thing that I usually say: “O best of husbands, citizen of the city of Athens ... are you
not ashamed that you care about money so that you have as much of it as possible, about
fame and honors, but about reasonableness, about the truth and about your soul, so that it
may be as good as possible, you do not care and do not think?

At the beginning of his biography, Socrates was engaged in the craft of his father, but left
him at the age of 30 and since then lived in poverty. Like all Athenian citizens, he took part
in the wars of his fatherland, was, among other things, in the army that, at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian war, besieged Potidea, and participated in the battles of Delos and
Amphipolis. In the military field, he was not only distinguished by his courage, but by his
steadfastness and patience he earned the astonishment of his pampered compatriots. At the
battle of Delos, where the Athenians were utterly defeated, Socrates fought with such
courage that later one of the generals said that the Athenians would certainly have won if
everyone had performed their duties so brilliantly as Socrates.

People came to Socrates, who led an ascetic life, for knowledge, in search of truth. He did
not teach oratory and other crafts, but taught to be virtuous towards loved ones: family,
relatives, friends, servants and slaves.

Socrates chooses to die defending his ideas:

Conscience is an invention of Socrates, for which he was accused of atheism and executed.
Only a knowing and moral soul, according to Socrates, leads a person along the path of a
worthy life. The views and judgments of Socrates are connected with the culture of the soul,
with the culture of conscience, which is the subject of the science of conscience.