Would Kafka Follow Socrates to the Grave?

A legal and moral analysis of the philosophy behind Kafka's writings and Socrates' execution.

ὅστις γὰρ νόμων διαφθορεύς ἐστιν σφόδρα που δόξειεν ἂν νέων γε καὶ ἀνοήτων ἀνθρώπων διαφθορεὺς εἶναι.

A few weeks ago, I went over the broad concept of the term “Kafkaesque” by breaking down the major themes in that author’s works, and promoted the idea that some books must be read in their original language because translations fall short. I considered it to be a thorough review of the material at hand, but I knew there was more to cover. Most of the stories I had read involved mistreatment by a higher authority. The greatest injustice we recognize in the classical world was the condemnation of Socrates by the Athenian public. The more I thought about it, the more I saw other similarities between these stories: both Socrates and the protagonist of The Trial view their accusers as liars, they both have to wait an uncertain and abnormally long period of time¹ before their execution, and readers are left to assume that the system came to the wrong conclusion in both cases. In the Crito dialogue, the reader learns that Socrates has an opportunity to escape his imprisonment that he rejects, whereas we see Kafka’s protagonists as fated to follow the will of the bureaucracy throughout every step. Furthermore, Kafka seems to either pity the situations of the protagonists of his two most famous novels or blame them for their situation, while Socrates embraces his fate with open arms. I felt it meritorious to explore these comparisons and contrasts in a narrower scope, and for longer than my (self-imposed) word limit would permit. Therefore I have resolved to look into these two cases, and see whether the apparent contradictions between their philosophies held water under scrutiny. 

On Kafka

399 B.C. is the traditional date for the death of Socrates. His accuser, the beak-nosed Meletus,² convicted him by a margin of thirty votes³ and he was sentenced to death for both being impious to the gods and also not believing in them at the same time.⁴ These facts are the bare minimum that every American gets taught about the life of one of the most important figures in history. Even this tidbit is a small fraction of the single Platonic dialogue that covers the events of his trial. Our education system does not, for instance, delve into the reasons that Socrates fought against this charge, and we certainly do not explain why he accepted punishment while maintaining his innocence. The Crito dialogue covers his entire justification for the acceptance of his death.⁵ His friends and students all pitch in to bribe a guard⁶ to look the other way so Socrates can escape and live in exile, but the philosopher explains that, if he were to follow their plan, he would live as both a hypocrite and a criminal.⁷ Such an action would serve to invalidate all his teachings. It is more important to Socrates to die a martyr for the ideals of justice than to live as a coward and an outcast of society. Moreover, his participation in what he views as a fair trial is a sort of contract that he has made with the governing body, and if he were to escape from his imprisonment, he would be acting unjustly.⁸ The sun rises and Crito escapes empty-handed.⁹ This is perhaps Socrates’ most controversial conclusion to the average person. As time has elapsed, more people have valued their lives over their word or reputation, and this justification now seems absurd to the population at large. Accepting the judgment of any authority, just or unjust, that disadvantages oneself is almost unheard of to this day.