Evil in an Examined Life Orhan Pamuk an
1
Core 101
Professor Holton
September 26, 2007
Evil in an Examined Life
Wicked, bad, morally deprived, hurtful, vicious: the word Evil can be described in
countless different ways. Hoja, from The White Castle by Orphan Pamuk, and Socrates describe
evil with two similar yet still varying theories. Socrates and Hoja both see incuriosity as a form
of evil, yet they disagree on the root of that evil. Socrates thinks that the body is the root of all
evil, while for Hoja, the root of evil is sin. Because of this difference, Socrates attempts to free
others from their evil while Hoja simply tries to distance himself from it.
Hoja and Socrates place great importance on living an examined life. They see incuriosity
in others and view it as evil because to them, asking philosophical questions is essential to life.
Hoja asks personal questions like, “Why am I what I am?’ (Pamuk 58) as well as questions about
the stars. The “others” or the “fools”, who are ignorantly content with the unknown, disgust him.
Hoja believes the pasha accepts evil when he ceases to question the unknown. “’He has become
like the others’, he said. ‘He no longer wants to know that he does not know.” (Pamuk 42) It is
Hoja’s curiosity that distinguishes him from the others. Socrates also places great importance on
questioning. In the Apology, he says, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” (Plato 39)
Socrates too sees evil in incuriosity but in a slightly different form: arrogance. Instead of being
content with the unknown, the people in Plato believe that they know what they do not. “I am
wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he
knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know.”
(Plato 25) By arrogantly believing that they know something they do not, people stop
2
questioning it. In both of these cases, it is the lack of questions, or incuriosity that Socrates and
Hoja see as evil.
Although Socrates and Hoja both treat incuriosity as evil, they still disagree on the root of
that evil. Socrates believes that the body is the root of evil because it distracts us from the
intellect. He uses words like impiety and injustice for evil because both of these are the opposite
of the forms. All of our physical drives and desires are caused by our bodies and simply interfere
with the quest for these forms. Unlike Socrates, Hoja views the root of evil as sin. He believes
that a person’s actions dictate whether they are evil or not, but that fate pre-determines these
actions. Hoja says he does not fear death because, “disease was God’s will, if a man was fated to
die he would die” (Pamuk 72). Hoja was calm during the plague because “he had no doubt in his
heart that he must be innocent.” (Pamuk 72) By suggesting that death comes to those who have
sinned and at the same time that fate determines whether one dies or lives, Hoja implies that God
has pre-determined who are the fools and who are the wise. There is no redemption in Hoja’s
eyes because the root of evil is fate.
Because Hoja and Socrates’s view of the root of evil differ, so do their actions towards
others. Socrates wants to free others of their evil while Hoja wants to distance himself from that
evil in others. Socrates believes the root of evil is the body, therefore he must also believe that
there is evil in everyone. Because of this, everyone has the chance to rid himself or herself of
evil, or at least attempt to. Socrates makes a conscious effort to educate others in an attempt to
free them of their evil. He tries to teach people about the forms, Truth, Beauty, Justice, through
interrogation like we see in Euthyphro and speech like in the Apology. Since the body is what is
evil, Socrates knows that a person’s soul is pure and simply hidden under the physical
distractions a body presents. Socrates chooses to study the forms instead of the actual evil when
3
attempting to educate others as well as himself. Hoja on the other hand focuses on the evil and
how to define it. Hoja and Socrates are both looking for truth, but in two different places; Hoja in
Evil, and Socrates in the Forms.
Contrary to Socrates’s attempt to educate others through the forms, Hoja makes no effort
to help others rid themselves of their evil because he believes their evil is innate. There is
nothing anyone can do because fate in the end will determine whether or not a person is evil.
Instead of educating others, Hoja simply searches to define the evil that these “fools” possess. He
does so through interrogation, but a different, more brutal and selfish kind of interrogation than
that of Socrates. Socrates tries to free the people he interrogates of the evil while Hoja tries to
find the evil in the people he interrogates. Hoja wants nothing more than to separate himself
from the fools. He interrogates villagers to persuade them to confess their sins because he
believes their sins will reveal the innate evil in them. Hoja is desperately looking to define that
evil in order to more clearly define the separation between himself and the fools. When Hoja
interrogates the villagers for confessions, he is not satisfied with their trivial sins. “They must
have committed sins much more profound, more real, that distinguished them from us.” (Pamuk
133) Hoja is certain that the villagers are not confessing everything because he believes that the
difference between himself and the fools must be greater than a few petty crimes.
Even though Hoja may believe he is superior to the so-called “fools”, it is
apparent that Pamuk himself does not agree with Hoja’s superiority. Pamuk clearly shows Hoja
sinning multiple times through out the novel. He uses violence on both the interrogated villagers
and his Venetian slave. Hoja claims to be devout in his religion however Pamuk reveals to the
reader that Hoja does not fast during Ramadan nor does he sit down cross-legged while eating.
“Hoja ate his food at a table like an infidel.” (Pamuk 77) Pamuk intentionally shows the evil in
4
Hoja to argue that there is evil in everyone, even those who believe they are above it. Pamuk
would agree with Socrates that people can free themselves from evil through questioning. Pamuk
uses the Venetian to show a change from being curious to incurious and containing evil. At the
beginning of the novel, the Venetian searches for knowledge and can teach and challenge Hoja,
however over time he becomes complacent and unable to contribute anything meaningful to
Hoja’s search for knowledge. “Hoja suddenly said I had changed much.” (Pamuk 124) Because
he believes in this regression of the Venetian, Pamuk must also believe in the progression, that
people can start out with evil, and free themselves from it.
Both Socrates and Hoja recognize the evil in incuriosity and the necessity of living an
examined life. To Socrates, curiosity is essential because it is what frees people of their evil, the
body. Contrary to Socrates, Hoja believes that the righteous ones will live an examined life,
while the others will simply be content in their incuriosity. He sees evil as a constant whereas
both Socrates and Pamuk see evil as a piece of everyone. In either definition of evil, it is clear
that an active search for knowledge is essential in any life.
5
Work Cited
Pamuk, Orphan. The White Castle. New York: Vintage Books, 1985.
Plato. “The Trial and Death of Socrattes.” Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
2000.
Plato. “Phaedo.” Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
Core 101
Professor Holton
September 26, 2007
Evil in an Examined Life
Wicked, bad, morally deprived, hurtful, vicious: the word Evil can be described in
countless different ways. Hoja, from The White Castle by Orphan Pamuk, and Socrates describe
evil with two similar yet still varying theories. Socrates and Hoja both see incuriosity as a form
of evil, yet they disagree on the root of that evil. Socrates thinks that the body is the root of all
evil, while for Hoja, the root of evil is sin. Because of this difference, Socrates attempts to free
others from their evil while Hoja simply tries to distance himself from it.
Hoja and Socrates place great importance on living an examined life. They see incuriosity
in others and view it as evil because to them, asking philosophical questions is essential to life.
Hoja asks personal questions like, “Why am I what I am?’ (Pamuk 58) as well as questions about
the stars. The “others” or the “fools”, who are ignorantly content with the unknown, disgust him.
Hoja believes the pasha accepts evil when he ceases to question the unknown. “’He has become
like the others’, he said. ‘He no longer wants to know that he does not know.” (Pamuk 42) It is
Hoja’s curiosity that distinguishes him from the others. Socrates also places great importance on
questioning. In the Apology, he says, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” (Plato 39)
Socrates too sees evil in incuriosity but in a slightly different form: arrogance. Instead of being
content with the unknown, the people in Plato believe that they know what they do not. “I am
wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he
knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know.”
(Plato 25) By arrogantly believing that they know something they do not, people stop
2
questioning it. In both of these cases, it is the lack of questions, or incuriosity that Socrates and
Hoja see as evil.
Although Socrates and Hoja both treat incuriosity as evil, they still disagree on the root of
that evil. Socrates believes that the body is the root of evil because it distracts us from the
intellect. He uses words like impiety and injustice for evil because both of these are the opposite
of the forms. All of our physical drives and desires are caused by our bodies and simply interfere
with the quest for these forms. Unlike Socrates, Hoja views the root of evil as sin. He believes
that a person’s actions dictate whether they are evil or not, but that fate pre-determines these
actions. Hoja says he does not fear death because, “disease was God’s will, if a man was fated to
die he would die” (Pamuk 72). Hoja was calm during the plague because “he had no doubt in his
heart that he must be innocent.” (Pamuk 72) By suggesting that death comes to those who have
sinned and at the same time that fate determines whether one dies or lives, Hoja implies that God
has pre-determined who are the fools and who are the wise. There is no redemption in Hoja’s
eyes because the root of evil is fate.
Because Hoja and Socrates’s view of the root of evil differ, so do their actions towards
others. Socrates wants to free others of their evil while Hoja wants to distance himself from that
evil in others. Socrates believes the root of evil is the body, therefore he must also believe that
there is evil in everyone. Because of this, everyone has the chance to rid himself or herself of
evil, or at least attempt to. Socrates makes a conscious effort to educate others in an attempt to
free them of their evil. He tries to teach people about the forms, Truth, Beauty, Justice, through
interrogation like we see in Euthyphro and speech like in the Apology. Since the body is what is
evil, Socrates knows that a person’s soul is pure and simply hidden under the physical
distractions a body presents. Socrates chooses to study the forms instead of the actual evil when
3
attempting to educate others as well as himself. Hoja on the other hand focuses on the evil and
how to define it. Hoja and Socrates are both looking for truth, but in two different places; Hoja in
Evil, and Socrates in the Forms.
Contrary to Socrates’s attempt to educate others through the forms, Hoja makes no effort
to help others rid themselves of their evil because he believes their evil is innate. There is
nothing anyone can do because fate in the end will determine whether or not a person is evil.
Instead of educating others, Hoja simply searches to define the evil that these “fools” possess. He
does so through interrogation, but a different, more brutal and selfish kind of interrogation than
that of Socrates. Socrates tries to free the people he interrogates of the evil while Hoja tries to
find the evil in the people he interrogates. Hoja wants nothing more than to separate himself
from the fools. He interrogates villagers to persuade them to confess their sins because he
believes their sins will reveal the innate evil in them. Hoja is desperately looking to define that
evil in order to more clearly define the separation between himself and the fools. When Hoja
interrogates the villagers for confessions, he is not satisfied with their trivial sins. “They must
have committed sins much more profound, more real, that distinguished them from us.” (Pamuk
133) Hoja is certain that the villagers are not confessing everything because he believes that the
difference between himself and the fools must be greater than a few petty crimes.
Even though Hoja may believe he is superior to the so-called “fools”, it is
apparent that Pamuk himself does not agree with Hoja’s superiority. Pamuk clearly shows Hoja
sinning multiple times through out the novel. He uses violence on both the interrogated villagers
and his Venetian slave. Hoja claims to be devout in his religion however Pamuk reveals to the
reader that Hoja does not fast during Ramadan nor does he sit down cross-legged while eating.
“Hoja ate his food at a table like an infidel.” (Pamuk 77) Pamuk intentionally shows the evil in
4
Hoja to argue that there is evil in everyone, even those who believe they are above it. Pamuk
would agree with Socrates that people can free themselves from evil through questioning. Pamuk
uses the Venetian to show a change from being curious to incurious and containing evil. At the
beginning of the novel, the Venetian searches for knowledge and can teach and challenge Hoja,
however over time he becomes complacent and unable to contribute anything meaningful to
Hoja’s search for knowledge. “Hoja suddenly said I had changed much.” (Pamuk 124) Because
he believes in this regression of the Venetian, Pamuk must also believe in the progression, that
people can start out with evil, and free themselves from it.
Both Socrates and Hoja recognize the evil in incuriosity and the necessity of living an
examined life. To Socrates, curiosity is essential because it is what frees people of their evil, the
body. Contrary to Socrates, Hoja believes that the righteous ones will live an examined life,
while the others will simply be content in their incuriosity. He sees evil as a constant whereas
both Socrates and Pamuk see evil as a piece of everyone. In either definition of evil, it is clear
that an active search for knowledge is essential in any life.
5
Work Cited
Pamuk, Orphan. The White Castle. New York: Vintage Books, 1985.
Plato. “The Trial and Death of Socrattes.” Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
2000.
Plato. “Phaedo.” Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.