Comparing Socrates’ Daimonion to Arjuna’s Krishna

Posted: February 21st, 2020

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Comparing Socrates’ Daimonion to Arjuna’s Krishna

The character, Arjuna, as represented in the Bhagavad-Gita and the renowned Greek philosopher, Socrates, possess an exclusive character trait that delineated their conjectures and facilitated them into actual courses of action. In essence, it is arguable that both individuals engaged with an unforeseen or abstract force that provided guidance based on the different situations that they experienced at the time. The dialogues that took place between Arjuna and Socrates and their respective inner voices enlightened their decisions. On one hand, Socrates described this abstract force as the daimonion. On the other hand, Arjuna was directed by an essence he perceived as the deity, Krishna. Based on both aspects, it is evident that Arjuna and Socrates engage with their respective messengers in different ways as reflected by their influence over the decisions and actions that they inculcate in their varied situations.

In definition, the term, ‘daimonion’ actually originates the Greek dialect. Accordingly, a daimonion comprises an internal mentor seen as assuming the temperament of an evil spirit or influenced by one. The delineation of the respective phenomenon illustrates the disparity that exists between Socrates and Arjuna’s guides in terms of religion. Socrates’ daimonion may as well be understood as his demon in respect to the meaning provided. However, for Arjuna, his guide (Krishna) is actually represented as God. On a moral basis, the guides directing Socrates and Arjuna possess different ethical implications. Socrates’ daimonion is perceived as evil in respect to its inclination as an evil spirit. Arjuna’s guide, Krishna, is widely seen as the personification of good. As an outcome, both guides direct their significant persons in different ways as illustrated by their moral definitions.

Apart from the difference in morality, Socrates’ daimonion and Arjuna’s Krishna provided different forms of advice to their hosts in order to guide them. For Socrates, the daimonion consistently focused on the negative aspects despite resonating as the host’s inner conscience. Additionally, the daimonion perceived the different situations that Socrates faced as causative factors for ramifications that would greatly injure him. Alternately, Krishna acted as a rational guide based on the way he engaged with Arjuna especially in situations that were particularly conflicting. For example, in the struggle between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, Arjuna was bent on withdrawing from the battle due to the negative repercussions it would impose on his loved ones. However, withdrawing from the struggle would only violate the terms of his warrior caste (Kshatriya). Therefore, in order to deliver Arjuna from his internal conflict, Krishna offered a rational solution that would eventually encourage Arjuna to abide by his destiny.

Despite the obvious disparities between Socrates’ daimonion and Arjuna’s Krishna, it is evident that none of the guides coerced their hosts into engaging in actions they supported. In the end, each guide allowed Socrates and Arjuna to make decisions on their own terms. For instance, Socrates’ inner essence consistently warned Socrates from taking part in certain decisions because of the negative consequences that would materialize. Irrespective of this, the daimonion never forced him to make his daily decisions. The same situation also applies for Arjuna in relation to the involvement of Krishna in his life. Even though Krishna’s support for participation in battle outweighs the reasons provided by Arjuna, he does not coerce Arjuna to follow his line of reason. As such, Arjuna makes his own decisions in respect to participating in the battle.