A Clarifying Statement

Oh to be young.

Recently, I found myself at an MLS match seated next to a woman I’d never met before. I don’t remember the score, but I do remember that I obnoxiously overshared a summary of a lecture I’d enjoyed — one about the death of Socrates. It was an unexpected moment of connection, sparked by philosophy in the middle of a soccer game. (I swear, I’m not always like this.)

You may recall, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian court, accused of corrupting the youth and impiety — essentially, for challenging conventional beliefs and encouraging critical thought. Though offered the chance to escape or propose a lesser punishment, he refused, believing it would compromise his principles. Due to a religious festival, his execution was delayed, and he spent his final days in jail surrounded by close friends and students. During this time, he continued to engage in deep discourse, remaining calm, thoughtful, and open-minded until the moment the hemlock was administered.

In discussing this philosophical martyrdom, Angie Hobbs, Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, articulated her admiration for Socrates in an elegant way, saying that Socrates’ death exemplifies the courage of living by one’s convictions. He remains a powerful model of integrity, not because he stubbornly clings to beliefs, but because those beliefs are grounded in rigorous, rational reflection. His legacy isn’t just personal bravery; it’s his commitment to thoughtful dialogue and mutual understanding.

Rather than seeking to persuade, use, or humiliate others, Socrates aims for genuine agreement — a shared conclusion reached through reasoned inquiry. He engages others not to win arguments, but to test and refine his own views, always open to the possibility that he might be wrong. This humility, paired with intellectual rigor, allows him to act with confidence while remaining receptive to challenge.

Even in his final moments, Socrates models a deeply humane way of engaging: calm, courteous, receptive to dissent. For all his imperfections, he remains open to revision and his thoughtful and respectful approach to dialogue is a timeless example of experience and maturity in discourse.

I have deep respect for people who hold fast to their core values — not with arrogance, but with humility. The kind of people who seek genuine understanding, and who pursue good natured consensus through respectful discourse, even if agreement is never achieved and the academic exercise is futile. Sure, verbal sparring, rhetoric as sport, is one thing, but when opportunities for meaningful transaction are habitually transformed into confrontations to reinforce a binary, it’s neither erudite nor sportsmanlike. Additionally, too much is lost in translation, which is perhaps why Jesus spoke in parables — to invite reflection rather than provoke for provocation’s sake.

What I find disconcerting is when conviction is expressed through needlessly aggressive or abusive speech. Passion without compassion is not strength. It can be reckless to make inflammatory statements with an audience of marginalized communities that aren’t lent understanding nor an ear to hear. This is not surprising, especially when empathy can be dismissed as a “made-up New Age term” and sympathy is exercised selectively.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, aren’t I only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal?