In Book X of the Republic, Socrates vehemently denounces grief and mourning. It establishes an analogy between private and public pain that is intended to reveal ideas about reason and appetite, while also exposing pain as detrimental to the cure of suffering. The pain and mourning present in the Iliad are opposed to Socrates' ideas on the subject. Homer argues that public mourning is the truly appropriate way to honor the dead, even inciting divine approval of mourning. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Additionally, grief becomes the very way the characters overcome their grief. On the surface, Socrates condemns Homer and the poets because he fears that the influence they exert on people's hearts will inspire them to harmfully imitate the pain of their tragic heroes. On a deeper level, the true source of the contention between Socrates and Homer stems from the different ideologies of the world held by the two: between a mentality of objective, universal truths and one of subjectivity and personality. In his very first mention of grief, Socrates outlines the division between public and private mourning when speaking to Glaucon. He admits that it is "impossible" for a "good and reasonable" man not to feel grief after the loss of something dear, but he also assures Glaucon that there are adequate ways to process that grief. In order not to arouse shame in those around him, the good man will resist his pain more in public, but in private he will lower his guard and allow himself to experience his suffering. Socrates describes mourning and pain as a particular example of the universal internal conflict between reason and appetite present in every man. In public, a man resists open pain because something bigger than himself is at stake; it is governed by reason and law. In private life, however, there is no law, reason or social consequences that keep it under control. Public law states that "it is better to remain silent, as far as possible, in times of calamity and not to get irritated and complain" (Repubblica, 604b-c). Rather than giving in to pain and suffering, Socrates advocates deliberation, for it is only through deliberation that one is able to cure oneself of one's pain. It is here that the analogy between law and pain and between reason and appetite becomes clear. Laws are the social and real embodiment of reason, which seeks to keep a society together. By publicly grieving, a man breaks those laws that keep society intact. Thus, just as through mourning men oppose the social unity guaranteed by law, so through pain they break the perfect unity of the soul. The pain is clearly labeled as an impulsive appetite. What drives a man to pain “is naked feeling itself” (Repubblica, 604b). Socrates adopts a condescending attitude towards pain, comparing it to “stumbling like children, clapping one's hands on the affected spot” (Republic, 604c -D). Furthermore, he even belittles the suffering a person experiences after the death of another, warning that "nothing in mortal life is worthy of great concern" (Repubblica, 604c). Pain is therefore alluded to as an infantile feeling driven only by a base desire and without any rational basis. Finally, after having fully explained this analogy, Socrates provides its fundamental truth. The part of the soul that "drives us to lament... is its irrational and idle part" (Repubblica, 604d). Pain is an appetite, so by suffering a person allows the lower part of his soul to prevail over the rational part based on reason. This disjoins the perfect harmony of the soul in the same way that public mourning disjoinsthe harmony of a legitimate society. Beyond simply managing the harmony of the soul, in stipulating resolution above mourning, law and reason act to the best advantage of people. . As discussed, reason is intrinsically superior to appetites, so reason is the best way "to face misfortune and deal with it" (Repubblica, 604d). On the other hand, grief is the lesser of two possible responses to loss. Again, Socrates admits 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 pain, but, ultimately: to suffer is to remain "inactive" in the face of adversity. Breaking free from the cycle of memory-induced complaint requires action, not idleness; it is necessary to place reason above natural desires. For this reason Socrates identifies pain with cowardice. Healing takes courage, and having the courage to lean on reason rather than lament is worthy of pride. As we will see when we discuss Socrates' critique of Homer, it is the ease with which humans give in to the desire to suffer that subsequently makes cowardice in the face of loss a social problem. Therefore, Socrates establishes that there are three things wrong with dealing with loss. pain in general and, in particular, private pain. First, by analyzing public and private pain with the correct government of reason and appetite in the soul, he demonstrates that pain is a sign of an unbalanced soul and therefore of an immoral man. This is a philosophical problem with pain. Secondly, the desire to suffer is completely useless for a man who has suffered a loss, and those who suffer should be ashamed of their cowardice. In fact, pain becomes completely disadvantageous for dealing with suffering and loss (Repubblica, 604b). This is a particular problem. As such, grieving, even in private, signals a disharmonious soul and is actually detrimental to healing. Finally, because pain is a natural impulse, suffering in public can easily lead to imitation of that pain by others in society. Ultimately, this can lead to total lawlessness and lack of reason, which proves overall to be as harmful to society as it is to the individual. Homer portrays pain in a completely different light, both in public and private. His descriptions do not include analogies or illusions with universal topics, but, instead, show pain from a completely human and emotional perspective. The poet never holds back the pain of his characters in public. The death of two characters in particular, that of Hector and Patroclus, arouses intense mourning on the part of their respective partisans. On his mother's side, Hector's death is met with her tearing her hair, throwing away her shiny veil, and raising a great wail as she looks at her son. His father groans pitifully and makes a loud, painful speech. The most dramatic thing is that his wife dies and comes back to life from pain and shock. The grieving process after the death of Patroclus shows 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 away the bloodstains until Patroclus' body is burned, on which he will cut his hair as a sign of respect for his dear friend. After all this, he also keeps a collection of games in honor of Patroclus. Homer very clearly supports such public displays of grief and mourning, and appeals to the influence of the Greek gods to show this support. When Patroclus' funeral pyre refuses to light, Achilleus calls for help from the two winds Boreas andZephyr. The two gods oblige and send a wind to light the flames. Through this brief interaction between the gods and man, Homer not only expresses his approval of the physical depiction of grief for Achilles, but also shows his approval of public grief in general. However, his use of holy approval is not limited to Achilles, as it sometimes even goes against his wishes. When Achilleus tries to leave Hector's body to be eaten by dogs, the gods descend 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. Furthermore, Achilleus is actually reprimanded by the gods for not allowing Hector to grieve. Here Homer cites divine approval for Achilleus' public grief towards Patroclus, while at the same time citing divine approval for the protection of Hector's corpse. In doing so, Homer's true views on grief and public mourning come to light. Public grief is humanity's way of honoring the dead. Just as the corpse of Patroclus deserves to be honored through appropriate mourning, so does the corpse of Hector. As such, Homer believed that public mourning served both to honor the dead. Ultimately, the representation of pain present in the Iliad, both in public and later in private, would never have found space in the framework of pain developed by Socrates. Humans are simply too prone to mourning their dead. Usually, as discussed, men are able to hold back their pain because public law implores them to do so. However, pain within epic poetry poses a danger to this restraint. By depicting heroes in public mourning, poets incite members of their audiences to do the same. Socrates clearly denounces poets who have a character who utters "long invectives in his laments or singing and beating his breast" (Republic, 605d), and Homer does exactly this in the Iliad. Both Priam and Achilleus match their grief with powerful speeches, and Hector's mother tears her hair. First, episodes like this satisfy every person's innate "[hunger] for tears and a good cry" within the supposed safety of fictional poetry, but the fictional nature of poems is not as harmless as it seems. The public begins to consider a loss like this as normal. Witnessing the satisfaction of their impulsive desire to cry within the show gives them such "vicarious pleasure" that the line between fiction and reality blurs. By indulging the nature of the pain within the poem, they become more susceptible and less able to restrain the pain within themselves. The contagious nature of grief is also visible in the Iliad itself, as Achilleus is able to incite all the Achaeans to the “passion of mourning” through the display of their grief. Overall, poems harm the harmony of reason and appetite in the soul, so they must be banned. Furthermore, as seen, Socrates' philosophy firmly attests to the harmful effects of pain. If one were to follow reason, then one would realize that the death of a mortal being does not require any sentimental response, nor does it bring any benefit to a person. Indulging in pain only serves to delay the healing process, but Homer clearly believes that pain is the only way to truly move forward and can be helpful. First, Priam receives divine intervention to recover Hector's body and ease his suffering only after he wallows in dung. Above all, the intimate moment between Priam and Achilleus opposes Socrates' belief in the harmful effects of pain. The two men are seen at their most vulnerable and sad.