In Book X of the Republic, Socrates vehemently denounces grief and mourning. He draws an analogy between private and public mourning that aims to reveal ideas about reason and appetite, while exposing mourning as detrimental to the healing of suffering. The grief and mourning present in the Iliad oppose Socrates' ideas on the subject. Homer argues that the benefit of public mourning is the truly appropriate way to honor the dead, even going so far as to incite divine approval of mourning. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Furthermore, grief becomes the very way in which the characters emerge from their grief. Ostensibly, Socrates condemns Homer and the poets because he fears that the influence they exert on people's hearts will cause them to harmfully imitate the pain of their tragic heroes. On a deeper level, the real source of the conflict between Socrates and Homer stems from the different world ideologies that both stood for: between a mentality of objective, universal truths and a mentality of subjectivity and personality. In his very first mention of grief, Socrates highlights the division between public and private mourning when discussing with Glaucon. He admits that it is "impossible" for a "good and reasonable" man not to feel pain after the loss of something dear to him, but he also assures Glaucon that there are appropriate ways to deal with this. pain. In order not to arouse shame among those around him, the good man will resist his pain more in public, but in private, he will let down his guard and allow himself to experience his suffering. Socrates describes mourning and sorrow as a particular example of the universal inner conflict between reason and appetite present in every man. In public, a man resists open grief because there is something greater than himself at stake; it is governed by reason and law. In private, however, there is no law, reason, or social consequences to keep him in check. Public law states that “it is best to be silent as much as possible in times of calamity and not to become irritated and complain” (Republic, 604b-c). Rather than giving in to sorrow and suffering, Socrates advocates deliberation, because it is only through deliberation that one can heal one's wound. It is here that the analogy between law and sorrow, between reason and appetite, becomes clear. Laws are the real, societal embodiment of reason, seeking to maintain the unity of a society. By grieving publicly, a man breaks the laws that keep society intact. Thus, just as grieving men oppose the societal unity guaranteed by law, they shatter the perfect unity of the soul through grief. Grief is very clearly characterized as an impulsive appetite. What pushes a man to cry “is the simple feeling itself” (Republic, 604b). Socrates takes a condescending attitude toward grief, comparing it to “stumbling like children, clapping their hands where they are smitten” (Republic, 604c). -d). Furthermore, he even downplays the suffering a person feels after the death of another, warning that "nothing in mortal life is worthy of great concern" (Republic, 604c). Grief is then evoked as a childish feeling motivated solely by a base desire without rational basis. Finally, after explaining this analogy in its entirety, Socrates exposes the fundamental truth behind it. The part of the soul which “moves us to lament…is the irrational and idle part” (Republic, 604d). Grief is aappetite, so by suffering, a person allows the lower part of his soul to prevail over the rational part based on reason. This breaks the perfect harmony of the soul in the same way that public mourning breaks the harmony of a society of law. In addition to simply managing the harmony of the soul, by stipulating deliberation before mourning, law and reason act to the best advantage of the people. . As discussed, reason is being intrinsically superior to appetites, reason is therefore the best way “to confront misfortune and manage it” (Republic, 604d). On the other hand, grief is the lesser of two possible responses to loss. Once again, Socrates concedes that humans naturally dwell on the memory of suffering, which is why it is an impulsive appetite. It is much easier for man to give in to this appetite for sorrow, but ultimately: to cry is to remain “idle” in the face of adversity. Breaking free from the cycle of lament caused by memory requires action, not idleness; it requires placing reason above natural desires. It is for this reason that Socrates equates sorrow with cowardice. Healing takes courage, and having the courage to rely on reason rather than lament is something to be proud of. As we will see when we discuss Socrates' critique of Homer, it is the ease with which humans give in to the desire to mourn that then makes cowardice in the face of loss a societal problem. Therefore, Socrates establishes that there are three things wrong with mourning in general and, in particular, private mourning. First, by comparing public and private sorrow with the good governance of reason and appetite in the soul, he proves that sorrow is the sign of an unbalanced soul and therefore of an immoral man. This is a philosophical problem with grief. Secondly, the desire to cry is absolutely not beneficial for a man who has suffered a loss, and those who cry should be ashamed of their cowardice. Grief actually becomes completely disadvantageous compared to suffering and loss (Republic, 604b). This is a special problem. As such, grief, even privately, signals a discordant soul and is actually detrimental to recovery. Finally, because grief is a natural impulse, grieving in public can very easily lead to the imitation of that grief by other members of society. Ultimately, this can lead to total anarchy and lack of reason, which overall proves harmful to society as well as the individual. Homer portrays grief in a completely different light, both publicly and privately. His descriptions feature no analogies or illusions to universal subjects, but rather display grief from a completely human and emotional perspective. The poet never holds back the sorrow of his characters in public. The deaths of two figures in particular, those of Hektor and Patroklos, inspire intense mourning on the part of their respective supporters. At the hands of his mother, Hektor's death occurs when she tears out her hair, throws off her shining veil, and lets out a loud wail as she looks at her son. His father moans pitifully and gives a loud, sad speech. Even more dramatic, his wife dies and comes back to life in shock and grief. The mourning process after the death of Patroklos exhibits similar exaggeration on the part of Achilleus and the Achaeans. Achilleus orders his faithful followers to drive their horses three times around his friend's corpse. Peleus' son refuses to wash the bloodstains from himself until Patroklos' body is burned, whereupon he will cut his hair out of respect for his dear friend. After all that, he's also curating a game collection in honorof Patroklos. Homer very clearly supports such public displays of grief and mourning, and he appeals to the influence of the Greek gods to display this support. When Patroklos' funeral pyre refuses to light, Achilleus calls upon the two winds Boreas and Zephyros for help. The two gods oblige and send a wind to light the flames. Through this brief interaction between the gods and man, Homer not only shows his approval of the physical depiction of Achilleus' grief, but also shows his approval of public grief in general. However, his reliance on divine approval is not limited to Achilles, as it sometimes even goes against his wishes. When Achilleus seeks to let Hektor's body be eaten by the dogs, the gods come down to protect him. Aphrodite continually chases away dogs and anoints the body with oil, and Apollo produces a mist to protect the body from withering in the sun. Additionally, Achilleus is actually reprimanded by the gods for not allowing Hektor to be mourned. Here, Homer cites divine approval for Achilleus' public grief toward Patroklos, while at the same time citing divine approval for the protection of Hektor's corpse. In doing so, Homer's true views on grief and public mourning come to light. Public mourning is humanity's way of honoring the dead. Just as the corpse of Patroklos deserves to be honored with appropriate mourning, so too does the corpse of Hektor deserve to be honored. As such, Homer believed that public mourning serves both to honor the dead. Ultimately, the representation of mourning present in the Iliad, both in public and later in private, would never have a place in the framework on mourning that Socrates develops. Humans are just too prone to mourn their dead. Usually, as we have seen, men are able to contain their grief because public law invites them to do so. However, grief within epic poetry presents a danger to this restraint. By publicly depicting grieving heroes, poets inspire their audiences to do the same. Socrates clearly denounces poets whose character delivers “long tirades in his lamentations or sings and beats his chest” (Republic, 605d), and this is exactly what Homer does in the Iliad. Both Priam and Achilleus combine their grief with powerful speeches, and Hektor's mother tears her hair out. On the one hand, episodes like this satisfy everyone's "innate [hunger] for tears and good cries" in the supposed safety of fictional poetry, but the fictional nature of the poems is not as harmless as it seems so. The public is beginning to understand that grief like this is normal. Witnessing the satisfaction of their impulsive appetite to cry in the room gives them such "vicarious pleasure" that the line between fiction and reality blurs. By engaging with the nature of grief in the poem, they become more susceptible and less able to hold grief within themselves. The contagious nature of grief is visible even in the Iliad itself, as Achilleus is able to incite all the Achaeans to "the passion of mourning" by manifesting his own grief. As a whole, the poems harm the harmony of reason and appetite within the soul, so they must be prohibited. Furthermore, as we see, the philosophy of Socrates strongly attests to the harmful effects of grief. If one follows reason, then one will realize that the death of a mortal being does not require any sentimental response and does not even bring any benefit to a person. Indulging in grief only delays the healing process, but Homer clearly believes that grieving is the only way to truly move forward and that it can be beneficial. From a.