Socrates and Plato - Session 11 (15 March 2001)

We are back to Socrates at one time he asked whether we had done something intentionally or not intentionally. Do you remember the context in which he asked this question? Whether he corrupted the young people intentionally or unintentionally. Can you find out where he speaks of this? He said that he could not have done it intentionally because nobody would like to be corrupted intentionally, nobody would like to be harmed. He said you always like to live with good people and if you corrupted the young people then they would have been bad people and you would have lived with bad people which nobody would like to do intentionally. Can you find it out on what page? Good. 10 and 11.

Now why do you think he asks this question? I had explained to you a distinction between a tort and a crime. You remember in a crime the most important element is intention to cause harm and you remember that Socrates was accused of criminal meddling. You remember this word: the accusation was that Socrates is guilty of criminal meddling. Meddling by itself is not a crime but if it is intentional meddling with a view to harm somebody then it is criminal meddling. That is why Socrates raises this question and he asks, Is that it is intentional or not intentional and he proves it was unintentional if at all it was a meddling if it is at all it was going to harm anybody it was unintentional and therefore is innocent. Right? Now we were on page number 18. Right? Socrates is now saying as to why he does not want that his people should come to the court and should plead for mercy so we shall read once again that paragraph where he says why do I not intend to do anything of this kind? Not out of perversity, gentlemen, nor out of contempt for you; whether I am brave or not in the face of death has nothing to do with it. The point is that for my own credit and yours and for the credit of the state as a whole, I do not think that it is right for me to use any of these methods at my age and with my reputation—which may be true or it may be false, but at any rate the view is held that Socrates is different from the common run of mankind. Now if those of you who are supposed to be distinguished for wisdom or courage or any other virtue are to behave in this way, it would be a disgrace. I have often noticed that some people of this type, for all their high standing, go to extraordinary lengths when they come up for trial, which shows that they think it will be a dreadful thing to lose their lives—as though they would be immortal if you did not put them to death! In my opinion these people bring disgrace upon our city. Any of our visitors might be excused for thinking that the finest specimens of Athenian manhood, whom their fellow citizens select on their merits to rule over them and hold other high positions, are no better than women. If you have even the smallest reputation, gentlemen, you ought not to descend to these methods; and if we do so, you must not give us license. On the contrary, you must make it clear that anyone who stages these pathetic scenes and so brings ridicule upon our city is far more likely to be condemned than if he kept perfectly quiet.

Now he goes farther and defends on this point….

But apart from all questions of appearances, gentlemen, I do not think that it is right for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument. The jury does not sit to dispense justice as a favour, but to decide where justice lies, and the oath which they have sworn is not to show favour at their own discretion, but to return a just and lawful verdict. It follows that we must not develop in you, nor you allow to grow in yourselves, the habit of perjury;

Perjury is a legal term. Do you know the meaning of Perjury? Deviation from what is just or right or true to tell a lie in the court is called perjury. To do something that is not just is perjury. Something that is not straight to be crooked is perjury. So to attempt the judge to deviate from his straight course of action by crying by wailing by appealing to be merciful he said this is not right it is perjury. That would be sinful for us both. Therefore you must not expect me, gentlemen, to behave toward you in a way which I consider neither reputable nor moral nor consistent with my religious duty, and above all you must not expect it when I stand charged with impiety by Meletus here.

Impiety means to be pious is to be. You know… When a man is pious what does it mean? It's very kind. He is a pious man. Muhammad was a pious man. What does it mean? Yes. To believe in god and therefore to have great kindness as god has. So impiety is irreligiousness and that was the argument against Socrates. Socrates was asked to stand on trial because according to the accusers he was irreligious he did not believe in gods. So he said now because I believe in god therefore I cannot ask your mercy. I cannot do something that is empires I stand charged with impiety by marita

Surely it is obvious that if I tried to persuade you and prevail upon you by my entreaties to go against your solemn oath, I should be teaching you contempt for religion, and by my very defence I should be accusing myself of having no religious belief. But that is very far from the truth. I have a more sincere belief, gentlemen, than any of my accusers, and I leave it to you and to God to judge me as it shall be best for me and for yourselves.

Now comes the verdict, the jury, people all have heard—the verdict is "Guilty", and Meletus proposes the penalty of death now Socrates on hearing the verdict, he makes a pronouncement:

>There are a great many reasons, gentlemen, why I am not distressed by this result—I mean your condemnation of me—but the chief reason is that the result was not unexpected. What does surprise me is the number of votes cast on the two sides. I should never have believed that it would be such a close thing, but now it seems that if a mere thirty votes had gone the other way, I should have been acquitted.

You know the meaning of acquittal, conviction and acquittal? To be convicted is—if an allegation is proved to be true then you are convicted. If I say to somebody you are a liar, it is only an allegation. But if it is proved that he is really a liar then he stands convicted, it’s proved and therefore he is liable to punishment. Conviction means one who is proved to be guilty and therefore liable to punishment, acquittal is opposite of it. When an allegation is not proved then it is acquittal, you are free, you are not liable to punishment, you are freed. So he says if only thirty people had to vote in favour of me I would have been acquitted.

Now tell me what is acquittal? Acquittal means that allegations are not proved. When it is proven you are convicted when it is proven that you are not guilty then you are acquitted. So acquittal means release in one word you are freed nothing stands against you.

In a court of law somebody is convicted and the police come around him and take him to jail. That is the result of conviction. If you are acquitted the court rises and you go home, you are free, you are acquitted. He says if only thirty people more had to vote in his favour he would have been acquitted. So he is convicted by a very small margin.

Even as it is, I feel that so far as Meletus' part is concerned I have been acquitted.

Now this is very difficult to understand in the face of it. If you want to understand it then you should go to the exact facts.

If you open page number 26, the actual fact was you read column number 34 on page number 26 Actual fact was, actually speaking two twenty voted for acquittal and two eighty voted for conviction. So actually the margin was sixty, not thirty as Socrates says, these are the real facts, two twenty for and two eighty against. Now he says Meletus has acquitted him why? Because two eighty is a result of three accusers, three accusers are Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. So there are three accusers. So divide two eighty by three accusers so it comes to ninety three. Now total people were two eighty plus two wenty. So out of five hundred people only ninety three people have agreed with Meletus. That is less than one fifth, is that right? Now according to the law of Greece at that time, of Athens at that time, if you accuse and if you win by only one–fifth of the vote, then you have to give money to the government for having wrongly accused somebody. Nobody should accuse without substance and if only one fifth of the people vote for you it means you have accused wrongly and without substance. So he says Meletus at least his accusation has got him only ninety three votes.

Even as it is, I feel that so far as Meletus' part is concerned I have been acquitted, and not only that, but anyone can see that if Anytus and Lycon had not come forward to accuse me, Meletus would actually have forfeited his one thousand drachmas for not having obtained one fifth of the votes.

>However, we must face the fact that he demands the death penalty. Very good. What alternative penalty shall I propose to you, gentlemen?

According to the procedure of law if death penalty is demanded by somebody then you should say: Oh! Don’t kill me, give me some lesser penalty that was the usual procedure and then if the people are happy to give lesser punishment than that should be given to you. So he says now it is my turn to ask for a lesser punishment, now you see his answer.

However, we must face the fact that he demands the death penalty. Very good. What alternative penalty shall I propose to you, gentlemen? Obviously it must be adequate. Well, what penalty do I deserve to pay or suffer, in view of what I have done?

He now makes a very important statement.

I have never lived an ordinary quiet life.

Now he explains what kind of punishment he should be given lesser than death penalty. So he says:

>I have never lived an ordinary quiet life. I did not care for the things that most people care about— making money, having a comfortable home, high military or civil rank, and all the other activities, political appointments, secret societies, party organizations, which go on in our city. I thought that I was really too strict in my principles to survive if I went in for this sort of thing. So instead of taking a course which would have done no good either to you or to me, I set myself to do you individually in private what I hold to be the greatest possible service. I tried to persuade each one of you not to think more of practical advantages than of his mental and moral well-being, or in general to think more of advantage than of well- being in the case of the state or of anything else. What do I deserve for behaving in this way?

So he says actually instead of seeking for money, prestige, power, or position. I only tried to take up upon myself the duty to persuade each one of you, be good, develop your mental faculties and be more rational. This is what I have been doing. Now for that, what do I deserve? He says this is the service I have rendered. Now you tell me what I should deserve, now he himself answers:

What do I deserve for behaving in this way? Some reward, gentlemen, if I am bound to suggest what I really deserve, and what is more, a reward which would be appropriate for myself. Well, what is appropriate for a poor man who is a public benefactor and who requires leisure for giving you moral encouragement? Nothing could be more appropriate for such a person than free maintenance.

This is what he asks because this is what I deserve. I am an old man, I need leisure to come about, to go about, to talk to you; so what I should be given by the State is to give me complete maintenance, free maintenance, so that I can do my job really well.

Nothing could be more appropriate for such a person than free maintenance at the state's expense. He deserves it much more than any victor in the races at Olympia, whether he wins with a single horse or a pair or a team of four. These people give you the semblance of success, but I give you the reality; they do not need maintenance, but I do. So if I am to suggest an appropriate penalty which is strictly in accordance with justice, I suggest free maintenance by the state.

So this is the alternative he suggests.

Perhaps when I say this I may give you the impression, as I did in my remarks about exciting sympathy and making passionate appeals, that I am showing a deliberate perversity. That is not so, gentlemen. The real position is this. I am convinced that I never wrong anyone intentionally, but I cannot convince you of this, because we have had so little time for discussion. If it was your practice, as it is with other nations, to give not one day but several to the hearing of capital trials, I believe that you might have been convinced, but under present conditions it is not easy to dispose of grave allegations in a short space of time. So, being convinced that I do no wrong to anybody, I can hardly be expected to wrong myself by asserting that I deserve something bad, or by proposing a corresponding penalty. Why should I? For fear of suffering this penalty proposed by Meletus, when, as I said, I do not know whether it is a good thing or a bad? Do you expect me to choose something which I know very well is bad by making my counterproposal? Imprisonment? Why should I spend my days in prison, in subjection to the periodically appointed officers of the law? A fine, with imprisonment until it is paid? In my case the effect would be just the same, because I have no money to pay a fine. Or shall I suggest banishment? You would very likely accept the suggestion.

Then he answers why.

I should have to be desperately in love with life to do that, gentlemen. I am not so blind that I cannot see that you, my fellow citizens, have come to the end of your patience with my discussions and conversations. You have found them too irksome and irritating, and now you are trying to get rid of them. Will any other people find them easy to put up with?

I go from here and I go to another town I’ll do the same thing. Will they also not be tired of me? So they will also put me out of the country. Will any other people find them easy to put up with?

That is most unlikely, gentlemen. A fine life I should have if I left this country at my age and spent the rest of my days trying one city after another and being turned out every time! I know very well that wherever I go the young people will listen to my conversation just as they do here, and if I try to keep them off, they will make their elders drive me out, while if I do not, the fathers and other relatives will drive me out of their own accord for the sake of the young.

So in any case I’ll be driven out. Perhaps someone may say, but surely, Socrates, after you have left us you can spend the rest of your life in quietly minding your own business. This is the hardest thing of all to make some of you understand. If I say that this would be disobedience to God, and that is why I cannot 'mind my own business,' you will not believe that I am serious. If on the other hand I tell you that to let no day pass without discussing goodness and all the other subjects about which you hear me talking and examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living, you will be even less inclined to believe me.

This sentence ‘life without this sort of examination is not worth living’ is one of the most famous sentences of the world, therefore you underline that sentence. If you live a life without examining “what is life, what is worth of life, what is the value of life? If you don’t do this exercise you are not living really. To live is to examine the meaning and value of life. So he said: You are asking me that if I go elsewhere and I don’t have any discussions with anybody then I’ll be doing a great disobedience to God because God wants everyone to discuss this question; What is the meaning of life, why am I here, what is the value of life? And if you ask me I should be banished, I should go somewhere else, I should be quiet then it is disobedience to God.

Nevertheless that is how it is, gentlemen, as I maintain, though it is not easy to convince you of it. Besides, I am not accustomed to think of myself as deserving punishment. If I had money, I would have suggested a fine that I could afford, because that would not have done me any harm. As it is, I cannot, because I have none, unless of course you like to fix the penalty at what I could pay. I suppose I could probably afford 5 Pounds. I suggest a fine of that amount.

So he is ready to pay five pounds for his acquittal at that time. One moment, gentlemen. Plato here, and Crito and Critobulus and Apollodorus, want me to propose 150 pounds, on their security. Very well, I agree to this sum, and you can rely upon these gentlemen for its payment.

So now the discussion about this penalty of 150 pounds, the people are now very angry with Socrates because he has almost insulted them, he has not asked for any kind of punishment. This is a lesser punishment, 150 pounds is nothing, so they are very angry with him.

The jury decides for the death–penalty. So the death–penalty is carried out against Socrates. Now Socrates says on hearing the death–penalty:

Well, gentlemen, for the sake of a very small gain in time you are going to earn the reputation— and the blame from those who wish to disparage our city—of having put Socrates to death, 'that wise man'— because they will say I am wise even if I am not, these people who want to find fault with you. If you had waited just a little while, you would have had your way in the course of nature. You can see that I am well on in life and near to death. I am saying this not to all of you but to those who voted for my execution, and I have something else to say to them as well.

No doubt you think, gentlemen, that I have been condemned for lack of the arguments which I could have used if I had thought it right to leave nothing unsaid or undone to secure my acquittal. But that is very far from the truth. It is not a lack of arguments that has caused my condemnation, but a lack of effrontery and impudence, and the fact that I have refused to address you in the way which would give you most pleasure. You would have liked to hear me weep and wail, doing and saying all sorts of things which I regard as unworthy of myself, but which you are used to hearing from other people. But I did not think then that I ought to stoop to servility because I was in danger, and I do not regret now the way in which I pleaded my case. I would much rather die as the result of this defence than live as the result of the other sort. In a court of law, just as in warfare, neither I nor any other ought to use his wits to escape death by enemies. In battle it is often obvious that you could escape being killed by giving up your arms and throwing yourself upon the mercy of your pursuers, and in every kind of danger there are plenty of devices for avoiding death if you are unscrupulous enough to stick at nothing. But I suggest, gentlemen, that the difficulty is not so much to escape death; the real difficulty is to escape from doing wrong, which is far more fleet of foot. It’s easier to do a wrong thing and very fast you can do a wrong thing. To avoid wrong is a very difficult thing. In this present instance I, the slow old man, have been overtaken by the slower of the two, that is to say I have been overtaken by my intention of not doing a wrong thing which is more difficult. But my accusers, who are clever and quick, have been overtaken by the faster—by iniquity.

You know the word iniquity? There is a word called equity that is the original word. You know the word equal, equal also means just; if you do a good to me and I do good to you they are both equal therefore it is just, equity is justice therefore iniquity is injustice. Correct? Iniquity is injustice. There is what is called the Law of Equity. This law of equity is an unwritten law. There is no book which says what is the law of equity. In other words, the Law of Equity is a blank book. It tells you simply that in the past whenever such and such difficult cases were put before the court then judges decided what was justice in each case, what is common sense. You remember once I told you the story of Jesus Christ where the owner of the farm goes out to hire people. Yes, you remember that story? Then he hires them at a certain rate, after a few hours he goes again and hires some more people then later on he hires some more and then at last he hires still more in the last hour and then the question is of payment and the owner of the farm decides that all of them will get equal payment. Now such cases are laid down in The Law of Equity. He was accused by the first people who he had hired saying that we have worked for the whole day and they have worked only for one hour, those who came last worked only for one hour. It is great injustice, it is iniquity if you pay them the same as we have been paid but the owner said: No the needs of the last are the same as yours. I brought them at the last hour they would have come even in the first hour, I brought them at the last hour but their needs are greater or same as yours therefore I must pay them as much as I paid to them, 'unto this last' that is a very famous phrase—unto this last, I must pay unto this last as much as I paid unto the first. There is a very great book in English whose title is ‘Unto this Last’ written by Ruskin, a very famous British author. It’s a book on economics where he discusses what equity is. If a mother has three children and has only one small bread piece how should she distribute this piece? There are three children, including herself, four people, and only a small piece of bread. What is just, what is equity according to the mother?

Answer: Divide into three.

Good, divide into three and remain herself without any bread that is called equity.

In different circumstances what is equal is not the same. Equality is not a mathematical sum, two equal to two. No? In different circumstances, different individual’s concerned, different relations are concerned. So the Law of Equity takes into account not mathematical sums but the whole human situation and then decides what is right and what is wrong that is called the Law of Equity. When mechanical law does not apply but human law applies. So here he has used the word iniquity.

When I leave this court I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convicted by truth herself of depravity and wickedness. And they accept their sentence even as I accept mine. No doubt it was bound to be so, and I think that the result is fair enough.

>Having said so much, I feel moved to prophesy to you who have given your vote against me. , for I am now at that point where the gift of prophecy comes most readily to men—at the point of death.

To prophesy is to make a prophecy, to announce in advance what is going to happen. He says:

Having said so much, I feel moved to prophesy to you who have given your vote against me, for I am now at that point where the gift of prophecy comes most readily to men—at the point of death.

It is a general belief that when a man is about to die he foresees what is going to happen, a dying man does not normally tell a lie. In fact in law, a dying man’s statement is taken to be true, it is given a great value. If there are so many witnesses in regard to a matter and if one of them is about to die and he gives his last word before death then his voice is counted as very important, it may not be conclusive but it is given a great weight. So he says that I am at the point of death therefore I am getting the power of prophecy, so let me now tell you what is now going to happen.

I tell you, my executioners, that as soon as I am dead, vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful than your killing of me. You have brought about my death in the belief that through it you will be delivered from submitting your conduct to criticism, but I say that the result will be just the opposite. You will have more critics, whom up till now I have restrained without your knowing it, and being younger they will be harsher to you and will cause you more annoyance. If you expect to stop denunciation of your wrong way of life by putting people to death, there is something amiss with your reasoning. This way of escape is neither possible nor creditable. The best and easiest way is not to stop the mouths of others, but to make yourselves as good men as you can. This is my last message to you who voted for my condemnation.

Actually if you study the history of Greece you find that soon after this event, Greece itself was put into slavery, the Greeks were taken as prisoners by the Romans and even the Greek philosophers had to serve as butlers in the army of Rome such was the result that happened after this event.

As for you who voted for my acquittal, He turns to those people who voted in favour of him. I should very much like to say a few words to reconcile you to the result, while the officials are busy and I am not yet on my way to the place where I must die.

That is to say some proceedings are going on before I am taken away from the court and I am taken to the jail where I shall die. There are still a few moments of freedom. So let me tell you, let us exchange thoughts between us as you used to do earlier.

I ask you, gentlemen, to spare me these few moments. There is no reason why we should not exchange fancies while the law permits. I look upon you as my friends, and I want you to understand the right way of regarding my present position.

Gentlemen of the jury—for you deserve to be so called—I have had a remarkable experience. In the past the prophetic voice to which I have become accustomed has always been my constant companion, opposing me even in quite trivial things if I was going to take the wrong course.

You remember he said earlier that I have a voice in me which always prevents me from doing something wrong although it says nothing when I am doing the right thing. So he refers to that experience.

Now something has happened to me, as you can see, which might be thought and is commonly considered to be a supreme calamity; yet neither when I left home this morning, nor when I was taking my place here in the court, nor at any point in any part of my speech did the divine sign oppose me. In other discussions it has often checked me in the middle of a sentence, but this time it has never opposed me in any part of this business in anything that I have said or done. What do I suppose to be the explanation? I will tell you. I suspect that this thing that has happened to me is a blessing, and we are quite mistaken in supposing death to be an evil. I have good grounds for thinking this, because my accustomed sign could not have failed to oppose me if what I was doing had not been sure to bring some good result.

So I have received no such sign from the voice and therefore I think what has happened is quite good. We should reflect. This is my divine inspiration. He says nothing wrong. Now from an argument point of view, from a rational point of view: We should reflect that there is much reason to hope for a good result on other grounds as well. Now he argues from a rational point of view:

Death is one of two things. Either it is annihilation, and the dead have no consciousness of anything, or, as we are told, it is really a change—a migration of the soul from this place to another. So there are only two alternatives after death, annihilation in which there is no consciousness at all or else you migrate from one place to the other, only two things can happen.

Now if there is no consciousness but only a dreamless sleep, death must be a marvellous gain. I suppose that if anyone were told to pick out the night on which he slept so soundly as not even to dream, and then to compare it with all the other nights and days of his life, and then were told to say, after due consideration, how many better and happier days and nights than this he had spent in the course of his life—well, I think that the Great King himself, to say nothing of any private person, would find these days and nights easy to count in comparison with the rest.

Now the word Great King which is used here refers to the King of Persia. You know in that time there was a big quarrel, big war between Greece and Persia, therefore the king of Persia was referred to by Greece as the Great King. What would the Great King do, he was supposed to be so mighty that he could threaten the people of Greece. So he says even the Great King himself would say that those nights which were absolutely sound in sleep were the best nights. Now if I am given a sleep forever how much I would gain even the Great King would not enjoy that kind of happiness which I would be enjoying.

If death is like this, then, I call it gain, because the whole of time, if you look at it in this way, can be regarded as no more than one single night. If on the other hand death is a removal from here to some other place, and if what we are told is true, that all the dead are there, what greater blessing could there be than this, gentlemen? If on arrival in the other world, beyond the reach of our so-called justice, one will find there the true judges who are said to preside in those courts, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus and all those other half-divinities who were upright in their earthly life, would that be an unrewarding journey?

These four names which have been given were supposed to be very near to God and on the earth also they did all things which were divine and therefore he says if I go out of the world I’ll meet those people they will not be like these judges, they will be better judges. So to be in a company with better judges will be a very nice thing.

Put it in this way. How much would one of you give to meet Orpheus and Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer?

These are all great people in the history of Greece.

I am willing to die ten times over if this account is true. It would be a specially interesting experience for me to join them there, to meet Palamedes and Ajax, the son of Telamon, and any other heroes of the old days who met their death through an unfair trial..

Ajax’s story is given on page number 28. Ajax was expected to be rewarded the arms of Achilles in the Trojan War. There is war between Greece on the one side and Trojans on the other. On the side of the Greeks the greatest hero was Achilles. Now after his death his arms, whatever credits and medals he had received by Achilles had to be given to somebody who was equal to him. Now Ajax was as equal to Achilles in his power, heroism, and courage. So Ajax was expected to be awarded the arms of Achilles which were supposed to pass after the owner's death to the next bravest of the Greeks but the generals of the Greek army Agamemnon and Minions awarded them to Odysseus, so injustice was given, instead of giving to Ajax who was really worthy they gave to the next one who was not entirely unworthy but not as worthy as Ajax. So an unfair trial was made and the awards were given to Odysseus. Ajax in a fit of madness, he felt a great injustice was done to him he became mad with rage and he killed some cattle in mistake for the persons who had wronged him. But later when he became more conscious, recovering his senses was so ashamed that he killed himself. That’s the story of Ajax. So Socrates says that after my death, if I happen to meet a man like Ajax, I’ll be very happy.

..Ajax, the son of Telamon, and any other heroes of the old days who met their death through an unfair trial, and to compare my fortunes with theirs—it would be rather amusing, I think. And above all I should like to spend my time there, as here, in examining and searching people's minds, to find out who is really wise among them, and who only thinks that he is. What would one not give, gentlemen, to be able to question the leader of that great host against Troy, or Odysseus, or Sisyphus, or the thousands of other men and women whom one could mention, to talk and mix and argue with whom would be unimaginable happiness? At any rate I presume that they do not put one to death there for such conduct, because apart from the other happiness in which their world surpasses ours, they are now immortal for the rest of time, if what we are told is true.

You too, gentlemen of the jury, must look forward to death with confidence, and fix your minds on this one belief, which is certain—that nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death, and his fortunes are not a matter of indifference to the gods. This present experience of mine has not come about mechanically. I am quite clear that the time had come when it was better for me to die and be released from my distractions. That is why my sign never turned me back. For my own part I bear no grudge at all against those who condemned me and accused me, although it was not with this kind intention that they did so, but because they thought that they were hurting me; and that is culpable of them.

However, I ask them to grant me one favour. When my sons grow up, gentlemen, if you think that they are putting money or anything else before goodness, take your revenge by plaguing them as I plagued you; and if they fancy themselves for no reason, you must scold them just as I scolded you, for neglecting the important things and thinking that they are good for something when they are good for nothing. If you do this, I shall have justice at your hands, both I myself and my children.

Now it is time that we were going, I to die and you to live, but which of us has the happier prospect is unknown to anyone but God.

So we have finished a very important chapter in human history. You have read yourself in the original and that is the great advantage throughout your life that you have read one of the greatest stories and a real story, something that has really happened on this earth in the physical world where a good man was done iniquity. What lessons we can derive is for everyone to derive and we have nothing to add to what is written here by Plato.

I think we have done one of the most important chapters of our course.