Socrates and Anne Hutchinson
Who says history doesn’t repeat itself? As I study American history this semester, I stumbled upon a story that possessed similar characteristics to the Trial and Death of Socrates. Anne Hutchinson went against the Church of England and even more so, against the Church in her Massachusetts Bay colony. She expressed that she had heard the voice of God, and suggested radical views such as free grace, that steered away from the Church. This is very similar to Socrates in that although she had reciprocity to her colonial home, Anne Hutchinson wanted to preach her beliefs and stand by her beliefs (as Socrates stood by his anti-belief in the Athenian Gods).
Also, Anne Hutchinson spoke to young women and taught them the values and ways of their faith. She believed she had a duty to do this as an elderly woman. The courts charged her of in a way “corrupting” those women, just as Socrates had been charged for corrupting the youth of the Athenian society.
Most importantly, both Socrates and Anne Hutchinson stood by their causes and were therefore seen, in my opinion, as martyrs for their causes. Although Anne only faced potential banishment, she stood by her beliefs as she risked losing everything she knew. Socrates stood by his beliefs facing death. Both were martyrs for their causes and should be remembered as important influences of history.
Is standing up for what you believe in, though different from the majority, what makes life (or death/banishment) worth living? If one goes against his or her ways, does that make life not worth living? Perhaps, because this would explain why Socrates and Hutchinson both found that life would only be meaningful if they stood by their own views. Socrates would rather die than give in to a theory or belief that does not correspond with his own. Hutchinson chose to be banished because she refused to stand down to her opinions. These traits of strength, courage and boldness make life worth living.