The Readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito
Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He questioned the laws that he thought were wrong and, to his death, never backed down in what he believed in. People may see that as stupidity or as heroism, the beauty of it is that either way people saw it, Socrates wouldn't care.
Socrates lived in a political system. In order for someone to survive in a political system, it is helpful to obey the laws of the system, or city. Did Socrates follow these laws? According to the facts, no. He was indeed put to death because he broke them. But when looking at Crito, I wonder if he even intended or noticed the laws he broke to deserve him death. In Crito, Socrates follows the laws and does not escape, as recommended. If he was such a criminal to deserve death, why didn't he escape? Socrates viewed the laws with his own reference. It is obvious that he does not see any law being broken such as corrupting the youth. If he did see this crime take place I think he would not of defended himself. Socrates was a proud man, even though he did not sho...
... middle of paper ...
...he was awake. I agree with the idea that the mind is a terrible thing to waste. If you do not challenge your mind to question the ideas that are so commonly accepted, you will be missing a large part of life. There is something lacking when you don't challenge the norm. You will never know what you may come across. Socrates view on philosophy was that it was a way of life. Philosophy was his life and that is what he died for. It wasn't pride or the laws, it was his mind. If someone tells me that I can't think freely, I may have the same thoughts. What would be the point of life being some government's drone? That is way Socrates was against so many forms of governments, because they all created drones. This view of philosophy, life, should be shared with more people. Then maybe people would understand the wrong things in the world and try to change them.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
There are many instances in Plato's the Crito where Socrates gives reasons for himself to stay in Athens and face his death. Arguments range from that of him being too old to run, to the common response two wrongs don't make a right. The reason I intend to argue against is one Socrates expresses in regards to his obligations to the city he has lived in all his life, and thus the rules that he has subsequently followed throughout that time. In Athens just like any other city, one follows the rules that the respective city has laid down because he/she believes in those laws, or does not and keeps silent. In the stand Socrates takes, he argues that since he has lived in Athens all his life, he is required to stand his ground and take what's thrown his way, even if that punishment is death, "do you think you have the right to retaliation against your country and its laws?" (Crito, 53) Socrates was a master of words. It is easy to say that his intellect allowed him to make anyone see all sides of an argument. Even Crito at times is confused about his decision to free his friend, think that he is making the right decision, "or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals."(Crito, 52) Socrates’ words are very convincing, but what he is not thinking about is the fact that this whole predicament was not meant to be. Socrates was supposed to be in all ...
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
The Golden age of Greece produced numerous philosophers, while also fostering traditional beliefs found within early Greek writings. One of the most proliferate philosophers during this time was Socrates, and because of his teachings he paid the ultimate price; his life. So, when asked who is Socrates, I believed him to be a martyr for his beliefs. The meaning behind his philosophies was to educate the people and inspire greater thoughts within them; causing him to be seen as a threat to Athens. So, while many may have seen Socrates as a simple philosopher and threat to the city of Athens, due to his teachings, I believe him to be a martyr for philosophical thought. I will support this idea by examining both the Apology and Clouds and how Socrates’
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
...ained more confidence and preached frequently, citizens didn’t appreciate his criticism. Even when his life was at stake, his beliefs would always dominate in significance. Although Socrates had some ups and downs in his lifetime, he left his mark deep into the roots of Ancient Greece. Philosophers would follow his teachings and embark on the logic of the Socratic Method for years later to come….
In the Crito, Socrates makes some surprisingly strong claims about the voice of the Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and explains why it is unjust to escape the prison. He claims that the citizens are bound to the Laws, and people ought to follow it. If one breaks it, it would cause great harm to the whole country. I will argue that the Athens does not held together by the Laws. I will also claim that neither Socrates nor citizens have an agreement with the laws.
...eks will face. Their goal in placing him on trial was not to destroy Socrates but rather to destroy Philosophy and free thinking, an impossible task. His final speech is to those who favored him. He consoles them by stating that he is perfectly fined with being killed because as soon as he is dead, he will either enjoy an eternal, uninterrupted nap or he will be conversing with other philosophers while in Hell (or Hades).
In Plato’s work, Crito gives many reasons as to why Socrates should escape, including how Socrates will be throwing his life away and into disgrace for both him and his friends for failing in breaking him out. But Socrates seems to have made up his mind in saying “what we ought to consider is not so much what people in general say about us but how we stand with the expert in right and wrong, the one authority who represents the actual truth” (580). What this means is that we shouldn’t listen to the popular opinion simply because it is there. We should spend less time worrying about what others think and what matters is how we stand with the correct person. In this situation, Socrates is blindly following authority and is not thinking for himself.
In the “Crito,” Socrates chooses not to escape prison because he has chosen a standard for justice. He argues that the system itself which prosecuted him was not unjust. Although the verdict was wrong and he was charged with something he didn’t do, his belief was that the trial in itself was not corrupt and held justly and fairly, the legal process was procedurally just and fair, even if it was the wrong sentence. He chooses to stay in jail and accept his sentence, as he puts it “And, so one should not repay an injustice with an injustice, as the many think, since one should never act unjustly.”(Plato) Socrates is following an objective truth, not his philosophy, but a philosophy that follows truth and justice. Had Crito managed to argue reasonably against the form of “Justice” that Socrates followed, he would have been quick to bribe the guard and leave Athens before dawn. Socrates ultimately argues for the reality of Justice, and as long as the laws of the land cohered to that reality, he too would abide to these laws. Socrates admirably argues for the idea of Justice, and given no counter argument by Crito, he chooses to stay in jail and face death. He surrenders himself to the values that he chose to uphold and allows the “river of life” to finally take him over the edge to face death with courage and an undeniable authenticity to who he chose to
In this text we will first determine who Socrates was, his approach to philosophy, ,and further evaluate whether or not he believed one must heed popular opinion about moral matters, whether or not he accepted the laws under which he was convicted as fair, and whether or not it would have been wrong for him to escape imprisonment after his trial. I will do this using various written works by Plato, scholarly articles interpreting the work of Plato regarding Socrates, and various encyclopedic sources. We will not be able to rely on the work of Socrates himself in written form because he did not write anything, and if he did none of his works survived.
Socrates is questionably the greatest philosopher of all time. He preached out against immorality and many other evils. He spent his whole life teaching other people how to be good and moral. In the “Crito” he is imprisoned and awaiting his death sentence for misleading the youth, of which he has been wrongly accused. Crito, his friend, comes to visit him in jail and they have a long conversation, which is the “Crito.” Socrates and his friend could have fairly easily broken out of the prison, because many of the guards looked up to Socrates and didn’t wish to see him killed. Socrates made the point that if he were to leave jail, he would be breaking the law. Even though he had been wrongly accused and sentenced to death for no reason, he couldn’t go against his own teachings, or else his whole life would have been in vain. He knew that if he didn’t escape, he would die and would orphan his two children, however no matter how much he loved
“True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves and the world around us”-Socrates. Socrates explain that we can only be wise by knowing that we know nothing, meaning being able to understand that not everything in this world we are going to understand and accepting that is true wisdom. Being wise means, having the power of being able to judge properly for what is true or right. In The Apology Socrates must defend himself to save his life when he is brought before the court on a charge that states “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young, and of believing in deities of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the state” (pg. 3). Socrates goes on to explain the way he
Socrates, arguably the greatest philosopher in all of history, can also be one of the most confusing people to try to understand. His way of thinking was so far from the norm of his time he was considered to be corrupting the people he came in contact with during his life. But, was he corrupting or improving society? He appears to contradict himself on many different occasions during The Apology. But is he contradicting himself or do we need to look deeper into his words to understand the point that Socrates was trying to get across?
He is the first person we can identify who seriously asked and pursued answers to questions that we now think of as characteristically philosophical. Thinkers before Socrates, the Pre-Socratics they 're called, had asked questions about mathematics, about metaphysics, and about natural phenomena. Socrates spent his life asking philosophical questions of the citizens of Athens, questioning their answers, debating them. He wanted to know what goodness was, what morality was, what piety was, whether virtue can be taught, what knowledge is and similar questions. The question Does Socrates allow his enemies to win by staying and accepting his sentence? The best answer is yes and no. His enemies have the relief of Socrates not being around now, but Socrates assures there will be more people to question the norms of Athens society and