Comparison of the epic about Gilgamesh and texts describing the trial of Socrates and his self-defense reveals interesting details about the attitude of early civilizations to human life. Man is perceived by both the Sumerians and the ancient Greeks as a unit that is able to know itself only in relation to the eternal and cosmic. But at the same time, it is precisely in the doom of a person to death and the realization of this that the great knowledge and tragedy of a person lies. On the example of the analyzed texts, ancient ideas about the purpose of human life and its full implementation become clearer. While the wisdom of Socrates makes it possible to characterize man and their limits by logical fabrications, these same conflicts take on a mythological aspect in the epic of Gilgamesh. Studying both texts, it becomes possible distinguish between false “superhuman” wisdom and real human wisdom, since it allows one to serve the benefactor and not succumb to pride.
Judging by the analyzed texts, deep knowledge of oneself is the main step on the way to true wisdom. The study of one’s own life becomes the key goal of Gilgamesh, whose wanderings and exploits are basically connected with self-knowledge and self-realization. The Socratic philosophy of a full life had self-knowledge and wisdom as a principle, which, however, were not just an end in themselves. Knowledge, as an essential factor in human happiness, is such because it serves the purpose of fulfilling virtue. Knowledge for Socrates implies a clear moral imperative that is able to separate a good deed from a bad one.
According to Socrates, a person always strives for what they see as the best for themselves – however, people can, due to insufficient knowledge, be greatly mistaken (Plato, 30a). Gilgamesh in this aspect of Greek thought can be perceived as a figure in philosophical search throughout the epic poem. Gilgamesh really explores the life around him, but not only with thoughts, but also with actions – the exploits of Gilgamesh can be interpreted as a person’s desire to realize their limits and expand the idea of their own capabilities. However, at the end of the epic, Gilgamesh is faced with the fact of his own mortality, unable to overcome his sleepiness.
“Superhuman” wisdom is nothing more than the vanity and pride of heroes, which is dangerous for them, since it removes them from the real goal – virtue. Throughout the Sumerian epic, Gilgamesh, the protagonist, along with his faithful friend Enkidu, defend their independence and autonomy. Heroes strive to independently reach the divine heights, finding the source of immortality. In essence, they oppose the gods, which in particular characterizes the episode with the murder of the heavenly bull belonging to the goddess Ishtar (“The epic of Gilgamesh” 6.150-155). The knowledge of death from life in Gilgamesh’s story turns inside out at the very end of the epic, when he realizes his mortality: “sleep like a fog already breathed over him” (“The epic of Gilgamesh” 11.211). The impossibility of defeating the sleep is a symbol of the fact that the hero, who aspired to take the place of a god, turns out to be only a man.
The tragedy of this knowledge is indeed described by the appropriate phrase of the researcher Sophocles that the knowledge of one’s mortality and interconnectedness with nature and the gods is possible only through suffering. Indeed, the epic of Gilgamesh, although mainly devoted to the struggle of Gilgamesh for immortality, its real essence is revealed only at the end. The plant that Gilgamesh plucks at the end of the poem may be a metaphor for wisdom that can give eternal youth and immortality. However, by the will of a fatal accident, the hero loses the plant and is forced to return to his royal city of Uruk, not as an immortal demigod, but as a man waiting for death. The fact that the poem breaks off at the descriptions of the city walls in many ways gives the poem an abrupt, but poignant conclusion, because Gilgamesh’s knowledge is, in essence, extremely tragic.
The example to which Socrates refers to demonstrate his own, purely human wisdom, refers to his conversation and examination with an Athenian politician. Socrates claims that he proved to him that he is wiser than he, because he is aware that he does not know many things and does not claim the opposite. He puts it this way: “At any rate, it seems that I’m wiser than he in just this one small way: that what I don’t know, I don’t think I know” (Plato, 21d.5-8).
That is why the life of a philosopher seems to be full and worthy – it is full of a desire for real knowledge of one’s own boundaries. “Super-human” wisdom is a term that Socrates uses only once, referring to the wisdom that he does not possess and does not understand (Plato, 20d.10). However, he uses it ironically and just as applied to those people whom he turned against himself by destroying their illusion of their own wisdom. Both the epic of Gilgamesh and the apology of Socrates are related in one thing – as a result, the texts come to the idea of realizing that wisdom can only be human and coming from a thirst for real knowledge.
Apparently the only superhuman wisdom that really exists in Socrates’ vision is divine providence. Reason can exist outside of a person because the idea of divine wisdom overcomes all subjectivity, isolation within the perspective of one person. The very impossibility of a truly objective and complete perception characterizes human wisdom and life experience. At the same time, attempts to achieve the highest and absolute wisdom that lies beyond the limits of human experience are doomed to failure. In the epic of Gilgamesh, the protagonist realizes that the human aspect of his personality inevitably implies mortality, that is, limited knowledge, lack of eternal wisdom. Socrates, examining the self-named sages, denounces their “super-wisdom” which turns out to be an illusion and a product of vanity.
In his apology, Socrates refers to the Delphic oracle Pythia, who professed the principle of self-knowledge and “hate hubris” – contempt for pride (Plato, 21a.5-10). Extreme pride is dangerous for a person because it misleads them and stops them from doing worthy and great deeds. Gilgamesh turns out to be a truly great hero, since he is interested in knowing the real structure of the world, that is, real wisdom, knowledge of the foundations. Having lost his friend Enkidu, he reflects on the theme of death, thinking about a similar fate – he realizes that knowledge entails a collision with the limits of his own life (“The epic of Gilgamesh” 9.5). As a result, it is the tragic purity of Gilgamesh’s search that allows us to speak of him as the owner of human wisdom.
This wisdom in realizing the limitations of the mind and at the same time its high inquisitiveness characterizes the sages in both texts. Socrates differs from his accusers and ill-wishers precisely in that he is ready to recognize the limits of his knowledge, while they, in their pride, are not capable of this. Thus, true wisdom, modeled on these classical texts, is self-knowledge in relation to the divine.
Works Cited
Plato. “The apology of Socrates.” The trials of Socrates: Six classic texts, edited by C. D. C. Reev, Hackett Publishing Company, 2002, pp. 26-62.
The epic of Gilgamesh: A new translation. Translated by Andrew George, Penguin Books, 1999.