‘Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius. See to it, and don’t forget.’

These were the final words of the great Greek philosopher Socrates as the poison hemlock worked its way through his veins. As the coldness spread throughout his body, and he felt the end was coming, Socrates turned to his childhood friend, Crito, to have an offering made to the god of healing. Many interpretations and queries have sprung from this deeply moving final passage of Plato’s Phaedo, arguably the pinnacle of ancient Greek philosophy. To live the Socratic life is to follow reason to where it leads, even to death if necessary.

At this moment, we can assume Socrates still had his wits, the hemlock had not yet clouded his intellect. Why then did he appeal to the god of healing at such a late and helpless stage of his life? To this, we have come to accept that Socrates, a man who viewed life as an illness in itself, was making a final offering to Asclepius for being cured of his bodily affliction with poison. But we may ask how a man of Athens, who went through life engaging in rigorous, thoughtful discussions in the pursuit of truth, be sentenced to death? Socrates had many fiery debates and many times his interlocutors were on the cusp of ending the discussion in a violent rage. But, in the final analysis, Socrates taught his students and dialectic rivals to engage peacefully in search of the truth, for truth is the most important objective of debate. All else, including ego, reputation and even life itself, is peripheral.

There is on occasion a crisis in the life of a man that at the same time constitutes a crucial moment in the life of humanity. The first question I asked when I heard Charlie Kirk had been shot was, ‘This cannot be true, can it?’ The answer came before I had finished the question. What shocked me was not just the utter travesty of it, and the loss of such a magnanimous, charitable, ambitious, truth-seeking young man, as he undoubtedly was, surrounded by all those people who watched on in horror at the grotesque spectacle. But because I realised, in that moment, the West, like Athens, had entered the next phase of decline.

Charlie Kirk was debating on the campus grounds of Utah Valley University on a sunny afternoon, the day before 9/11, as it happens, when he was shot. As he lay dying, his assassin was already fleeing the scene. We can only assume the killer’s motive can be boiled down to disagreement. It was not long after the bullet’s flight path was obstructed that social media was alight with glee and applause and ecstasy that Charlie Kirk’s life had been snuffed out. These contemptible fools cross a moral line, but not one of them could reach the intellectual bar Charlie Kirk had set. Of course, it is not Charlie Kirk, the man, they are glad to see dead, but what he represents – scrutiny, scepticism, and the Socratic method of establishing uncomfortable truths.

In Plato’s Apology, recounting the prosecution of Socrates before he was sentenced to death, the great Greek philosopher, utters perhaps the most imperishable words in all of Antiquity:

‘Discussing goodness and all the other subjects about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is really the very best thing a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living…’

Despite his compelling and admirable argument to sway the jury away from administering him with a chalice of neurotoxic poison and towards slapping him with a rather affordable fine, Socrates was sentenced to death for denying the gods of the state and inventing false ones, and for corrupting the youth of Athens. Following the sentence, Socrates did not protest and instead explained how he was of old age and his prosecutors would not have had to wait much longer for a natural death. He told the ‘gentlemen’ of the court that while he would leave and go away condemned, they would go away convicted by ‘Truth herself’ of injustice. Through the action of condemning Socrates to death, they, as did the old philosopher, accepted their respective sentences. Here is another excerpt:

‘…I tell you, my executioners, that as soon as I am dead, vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful than your killing of me. You have brought about my death in the belief that through it you will be delivered from submitting your lives to criticism; but I say that the result will be just the opposite.’

Socrates tells his executioners they will have even more critics than before, who up until this moment he had restrained without their knowledge, and being young and boisterous, will grow harsher and cause more ‘annoyance’ to them. Socrates tells the executioners that if they had expected to end the denunciation of their ‘wrong way of life’ and silencing disparagement by putting people to death, there was something amiss about their reasoning. One of the great culminations of the Apology is when the great philosopher declares that the way to stop the mouths of others from speaking critically is to become as well-behaved as possible – to become righteous and virtuous.

For those celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death, many questions ought to be asked. Not in the least directed at those among the revellers who falsely judge Charlie Kirk as having been a wicked person. It is not a mystery that Charlie Kirk’s perspective on moral questions is vastly different to the people in question, and, I might add, objectively superior. Charlie Kirk was a man who walked a righteous path, one of faith and humility. He most certainly allocated time on a daily basis to count his blessings. In this regard, one cannot help but think that those who cheered after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed believe they are, in a small, strange way, delivered from having to endure the shame of sharing a world with him. They are, I think, relieved and reassured a Christian conservative was taken out in such a callous and demeaning way.

Charlie Kirk ordered his life as a Christian. He was a loving and loyal husband, and a caring and nurturing father. Charlie Kirk prioritised God, then family, then country. On his desk he displayed the Bible verse from Micah 6:8, which reads:

He has told you, O man, what is good;

and what does the Lord require of you

but to do justice, and to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with your God?

Charlie Kirk was not an old man like Socrates, he was just 31, but had a wisdom peculiar for his age. His wealth of knowledge was a testament to his pursuit for truth and proved university degrees were not necessary for learning. Charlie Kirk was a man who sought to discuss the goodness on all subjects. He wanted to challenge ideas and ways of perceiving the world. He did not just want to improve others, but to improve himself. Charlie Kirk wanted to turn over every stone and sweep every mountaintop for the answer. He wanted to examine life.

For this, he was executed without a trial on September 10, 2025.