Author Archives: markdowe1

Arts, History, Philosophy

(Philosophy) Essential Thinkers: Socrates

c. 470 – 399BC

Socrates

Socrates: ‘The only thing that I know is that I know nothing.’

SOCRATES lived through times of great political upheaval in his birthplace of Athens, a city which would eventually make him a scapegoat for its troubles and ultimately demand his life. Much of what is known about Socrates comes through the works of his one-time pupil Plato, for Socrates himself was an itinerant philosopher who taught solely by means of public discussion and oratory and never wrote any philosophical works of his own.

Unlike the Greek philosophers before him, Socrates was less concerned with abstract metaphysical ponderings than with practical questions of how we ought to live, and what is the good life of man. Consequently, he is often hailed as the inventor of that branch of philosophy known as ethics. It is precisely his concern with ethical matters that often led him into conflict with the city elders, who would accuse him of disrupting and corrupting the minds of sons of the wealthy elite with revolutionary and unorthodox ideas.

 

SOCRATES was certainly a maverick, often claiming to the consternation of his interlocutors that the only thing he was sure of was his own ignorance. Indeed, much of his teaching consisted in asking his audience to define various common ideas and notions, such as ‘beauty’, or ‘the good’, or ‘piety’, only to show through reasoned argument that all the proposed definitions and common conceptions lead to paradox or absurdity. Some of his contemporaries thought this technique disingenuous, and that Socrates knew more than he was letting on. However, Socrates’ method was meant to provide salutary lessons in the dangers of uncritical acceptance of orthodoxy. He often railed against, and made dialectic victims of, those who claimed to have certain knowledge of some particular subject. It is chiefly through the influence of Socrates that philosophy developed into the modern discipline of continuous critical reflection. The greatest danger to both society and individual, we learn from Socrates, is the suspension of critical thought.

 

LOVED by the city’s aristocratic youth, Socrates inevitably developed many enemies throughout his lifetime. In his seventieth year, after Athens had gone through several changes of leadership and failing fortunes, Socrates was brought to trial on charges of ‘corrupting the youth’ and ‘not believing in the city gods’. The charges were brought principally to persuade Socrates to renounce his provocative public speaking and convince the citizens of Athens that the new leadership had a tight rein on law and order. With a plea of guilty he might perhaps have walked away from the trial and lived out the rest of his life as a private citizen. However, in characteristic style, he robustly defended himself, haranguing his accusers and claiming that god himself had sent him on a mission to practice and teach philosophy. When asked, upon being found guilty, what penalty he thought he should receive, Socrates mocked the court by suggesting a trifling fine of only 30 minae. Outraged, a greater majority voted for Socrates to be put to death by the drinking of hemlock than had originally voted him guilty. Unperturbed, Socrates readily agreed to abide by the laws of his city and forbade his family from asking for a stay of execution.

Socrates’ trial, death and final speeches are wonderfully captured by Plato in his dialogues Apology, Crito and Phaedo.

. See also Philosophy: An introduction…

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Russia, Society

UK measures and sanctions on Russia still leaves us vulnerable

BRITAINopinion-1

IN measured but uncompromising language, Theresa May handled herself extremely well in the House of Commons this week as she outlined the Government’s response to Vladimir Putin’s use of a lethal nerve and chemical agent on British soil. The Prime Minister’s rhetoric was equal to the profound seriousness of the occasion.

Her resolute demeanour and command of her brief – no doubt learned from her long experience of security matters at the Home Office – put to shame Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts to defend the Russian state and his attempt to score petty political point scoring.

In a new low for British politics, the Labour leader parroted the Kremlin line, suggesting it was unfair to blame Putin without first sending him scientific samples of the toxin in the Salisbury attack.

To his discredit, too, Mr Corbyn even appeared to pin part of the blame on budget cuts to the British diplomatic service.

Corbyn’s response to this grotesque violation of international law and British sovereignty – in which scores of our citizens were put at risk of agonising death – was: “It is essential to maintain robust dialogue with Russia.”

Who would honestly believe dialogue would bring to heel a former KGB officer who exults in presenting himself at stopping at nothing to eradicate his country’s enemies?

Even the SNP in Scotland, never a party solid on defence – incoherent on NATO and divisive over Trident – have grasped the gravity of the situation.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “It is very clear that Russia cannot be permitted to unlawfully kill or attempt to kill people on the streets of the UK with impunity.”

The SNP’s party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford assured the Commons that his party backed the Government and that “a robust response to the use of terror on our streets” was required.

However, we must be realistic. On their own, the measures outlined by the Prime Minister are high unlikely to shake Putin out of his contempt for the international order.

 

YES, Mrs May’s approach is a start. Her expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats identified as spies, the most radical such measure for more than 30 years, should seriously undermine Russia’s intelligence network. These expulsions were always going to be met with a tit-for-tat response.

Other sanctions – including the freezing of Russian state assets deemed a threat, the suspension of high-level contacts and increased security checks on private flights, customs and freight – also sends a signal that Britain will not let state-sponsored gangsterism flourish with impunity.

The truth, though, is that Mrs May held back from other measures that could have inflicted serious harm on the Russian economy.

The reasons for such caution are clear. One is that Britain depends on Russia for 20 per cent of our gas, leaving us desperately vulnerable to punitive Russian reprisals.

Another is that BP, our biggest company, has a vast holding in Russia’s biggest oil company, while the City launders billions in the country’s dirty cash.

And politicians have run down our Armed Forces, spending only £36billion a year on defence. Putin, with a defence budget of £44-50billion – and has an army ten times the size of ours – will feel safe to sneer.

Yet, Russia’s economy is only two-thirds the size of ours. We could be doing much more to match Putin’s military strength.

As for energy security, wasn’t it criminally irresponsible to allow last year’s closure of Britain’s biggest gas storage facility, leaving our reserves at today’s perilously low levels?

Given our vulnerability, the sanctions may have gone as far as Britain could go alone without the international effort needed by straining every sinew to secure.

There is one gesture that could signify abhorrence of the Salisbury atrocity. Whilst it is welcomed that no government minister or member of the Royal family will attend the World Cup in Russia this summer, wouldn’t a boycott by the England team and other countries who are equally infuriated ram home the message more powerfully?

Standard
Britain, Government, History, Politics, Russia, Society

Corbyn: ‘I’m the victim of a McCarthyite witch-hunt’

CORBYN’S STANCE OVER UK NERVE AGENT ATTACK

The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, has suggested he is the victim of a “McCarthyite” witch-hunt as he faces a growing backlash over his refusal to blame Russia for the Salisbury spy poisoning.

Labour’s shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry – a key Corbyn ally – and shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith broke ranks to accept it was beyond doubt that Moscow was responsible.

But instead of backing down, the Labour leader defied his critics by warning the Prime Minister not to “rush way ahead of the evidence” in the “fevered” atmosphere of Westminster.

In a move that will fuel backbench anger over his weak stance, Mr Corbyn urged the Government to take “a calm, measured” approach and said we should not “resign ourselves to a new Cold War”.

He suggested the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq showed government claims that Russia was behind the attack may be wrong.

In an article for The Guardian, he wrote: “To rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police, in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security.

“Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption, “he wrote. “That does not mean we should resign ourselves to a new ‘Cold War’ of escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent.”

Senator Joseph McCarthy became infamous in the 1950s for carrying out an anti-Communist “witch-hunt” at the start of the Cold War.

Mr Corbyn backed Mrs May’s decision to expel 23 diplomats from Britain, but called for diplomacy.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson branded the Labour leader a “conspiracy theorist” for his continued refusal to fully accept Russia was behind the attack.

He said: “The scientists at Porton Down are the very best in the world. Their knowledge, their expertise so clearly points to one direction and you really do have to be a conspiracy theorist of the wildest kind to believe that there is anything other than fact about the statement that Russia has done this.”

Shadow defence secretary Miss Griffith told BBC Radio 4s Today programme: “We very much accept what the Prime Minister said, this is a very sophisticated nerve agent, and that Russia is responsible for this attack.”

Mrs Thornberry said: “The Russian government has been given every opportunity to provide any credible, alternative explanation as to how its nerve agents came to be used in this attack, but they have not even tried to do so.”

It is understood around 30 MPs have signed an Early Day Motion tabled by Labour backbencher John Woodcock “unequivocally” accepting the “Russian state’s culpability”.

 

SENATOR Joseph McCarthy lent his name to the so-called “witch-hunts” that were carried out against suspected Soviet sympathisers living in America.

The Senator for Wisconsin fuelled the “Red Scare” in 1950 by claiming he had a list of 205 Communists manipulating government policy. More than 2,000 government employees were sacked with little proof and Hollywood writers, directors and actors were blacklisted.

In 1954, he outraged President Eisenhower when he investigated Communist influence in the army.

He lost his public standing after military hearings were broadcast on state media. Lawyer Joseph Welch asked him: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” Three years after the hearings he died of liver failure.

 

Standard