I heard this in a podcast today. I've heard this before too. Not just about Socrates, but a few other common figures too:
- Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person
- Lord Rama wasn't a real person
- The Mahabharata wasn't real (meaning, it didn't really happen)
A part of me hears this and feels - so what?
Of course, there's merit to doing history and there's merit to being objective about it. But that's not what I'm talking about here.
The reason, I think, people want to either prove or disprove the historical existence of entities so that they can give or take away the legitimacy of being proud of it all. Take the example of Socrates - if I am a stakeholder of the Greek philosophical heritage and agree on its influence on Western thought, somehow proving that Socrates was a real person who actually contributed to philosophy the way hay he did, gives legitimacy to your pride in Greek culture. Disproving that he exists, if you are already leaning against Greek superiority would help your cause in delegitimizing the pride that someone takes on being partaking from the Greek thought.
Another example would be from the Indian political spectrum. The Indian Hindutva-coded Right, often promotes Hindu idols, and also attempts to historically prove their existence. This helps their cause in helping their votaries feel secure about their political placement. If the great Hindu philosophers, kings, warriors, artists of yore really existed in the ancient times that they did, then the pride that I feel in their existence as participants of this grand eternal unbroken stream of Hinduism. The Indian Left, on the other hand, determines its political existence on that of the Right, and places it against all these things. They sinisterly try to disprove that these entities existed in the way they are presented because this plants seeds of doubt in the minds of Indian Right's votaries, which in turn helps the Indian Left.
My take on this is, "Why does it matter if they are real or not?"...."given that the ones that talked about them, the ones whose historicity can be proven are real"
Mahabharata is a fantastical story of mythical creatures and fictional beings. Okay. But the fact that it was written is true, right? The characters and the scenes painted in the Iliad are perhaps not real, but Homer was a real person, right? "Akschually, Shakespeare didn't write those stories" So what? Those stories are still born in the English culture of the 16th Century.
That these cultural artefacts didn't come from the person who is usually thought to be their creator can in no way rob the culture that produced them its glory. Vyasa may not be real, but Hinduism would still be GOATed for having written a book like Mahabharata. Socrates may not be a real person, but the impact Greek philosophy has on the Western mind is undeniable. Nothing can delegitimize the pride one would feel on considering themselves as admirers, adherents and carriers of that culture.
Of course, there's merit to doing history and there's merit to being objective about it. But that's not what I'm talking about here.
The reason, I think, people want to either prove or disprove the historical existence of entities so that they can give or take away the legitimacy of being proud of it all. Take the example of Socrates - if I am a stakeholder of the Greek philosophical heritage and agree on its influence on Western thought, somehow proving that Socrates was a real person who actually contributed to philosophy the way hay he did, gives legitimacy to your pride in Greek culture. Disproving that he exists, if you are already leaning against Greek superiority would help your cause in delegitimizing the pride that someone takes on being partaking from the Greek thought.
Another example would be from the Indian political spectrum. The Indian Hindutva-coded Right, often promotes Hindu idols, and also attempts to historically prove their existence. This helps their cause in helping their votaries feel secure about their political placement. If the great Hindu philosophers, kings, warriors, artists of yore really existed in the ancient times that they did, then the pride that I feel in their existence as participants of this grand eternal unbroken stream of Hinduism. The Indian Left, on the other hand, determines its political existence on that of the Right, and places it against all these things. They sinisterly try to disprove that these entities existed in the way they are presented because this plants seeds of doubt in the minds of Indian Right's votaries, which in turn helps the Indian Left.
My take on this is, "Why does it matter if they are real or not?"...."given that the ones that talked about them, the ones whose historicity can be proven are real"
Mahabharata is a fantastical story of mythical creatures and fictional beings. Okay. But the fact that it was written is true, right? The characters and the scenes painted in the Iliad are perhaps not real, but Homer was a real person, right? "Akschually, Shakespeare didn't write those stories" So what? Those stories are still born in the English culture of the 16th Century.
That these cultural artefacts didn't come from the person who is usually thought to be their creator can in no way rob the culture that produced them its glory. Vyasa may not be real, but Hinduism would still be GOATed for having written a book like Mahabharata. Socrates may not be a real person, but the impact Greek philosophy has on the Western mind is undeniable. Nothing can delegitimize the pride one would feel on considering themselves as admirers, adherents and carriers of that culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment