Question

Why is he any more to be called an apostate for having spoken ill tempered things of former friends than they for having spoken severely and cruelly as they have of him?

1) If not he, then who?
2) Why does he deserve the label 'traitor' any more than others guilty of the same offense: bad-mouthing a former friend?
3) Why is he so much more to be named an apostate for speaking ill of someone who once was his friend than they whom were guilty too?
4) Why is it that they can call him an apostate for speaking of his illness to his own friends, when slave owners are treating him and his former friends cruelly and severely?

Answer 1

The author argues that the individual is being unfairly labeled an apostate for speaking ill of former friends, while others who have engaged in similar behavior are not held to the same standard.

The passage highlights the hypocrisy and double standards of those who condemn the individual for speaking ill of former friends while engaging in the same behavior themselves. It raises the question of why the individual is singled out and labeled an apostate for actions that are considered acceptable or even encouraged among others.

1. The question "If not he, then who?" challenges the notion that the individual is solely responsible for the breakdown of relationships and the negativity that surrounds him. It suggests that others have also played a role in the conflict and should bear equal responsibility for their actions.

2. By questioning why the individual deserves the label of "traitor" any more than others guilty of the same offense, the passage exposes the unfair treatment and harsh judgment directed towards the individual. It implies that the label is being used as a weapon to ostracize and further isolate the individual.

3. The repetition of the phrase "to be named an apostate" emphasizes the severity of the accusation and the negative connotations associated with it. It highlights the disproportionate weight given to the individual's actions compared to those of others who have engaged in similar behavior.

4. The final question contrasts the treatment of the individual with that of slave owners, who are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny or condemnation for their cruelty. It exposes the double standards that exist in society, where certain individuals are held to a higher standard and subjected to harsher judgment than others.

Overall, the passage serves as a critique of social hierarchies, hypocrisy, and the unfair treatment of individuals based on perceived moral failings. It challenges the reader to question the assumptions and biases that lead to such selective judgment and calls for a more just and equitable society.