When reading the dialogs of Socrates, it is easy to ready each as an individual story. It is more difficult to take into consideration every word that Socrates has said up to that point and allow that to influence the validity of Socrates current position or argument. Though this may be more difficult we must take everything that Socrates has claimed to hold in every dialog. While doing this brings up a potential contradiction between Socrates Apology and in his dialog with Crito. Though this contradiction is clearly visible when focusing on just the idea of these claims, there is background beliefs of the Gods that allows both Socrates claim in his apology and his argument in the Crito dialogs.
In his dialogs with Crito , Socrates argues
…show more content…
With application of his logic in the Crito dialogs, if the Athenian Laws ordered Socrates to stop practicing philosophy and Socrates disobeyed he would be preforming a wrong against the Athenian Laws. This contradiction poses a few questions. The most interning may be, does Socrates value the practice of philosophy over his own life? Why would it be a ok to wrong the Athenian Laws and continue practicing philosophy while it would not be ok to wrong the Athenian Laws and save yourself from an untimely …show more content…
Therefore, to keep all of Socrates claims and arguments from contradicting, we must look at the agreements of Socrates accepting the punishment of death and the intent of Socrates to disobey the order to stop practicing philosophy separately. In both cases Socrates, as a citizen of Athens has agreed to do one of the three things listed earlier, stayed in Athens, and failed to persuade the Athenian Laws. Therefore, the only option left to avoid wronging the Athenian Laws would be to obey their orders. However, in the case in which Socrates was ordered by the Laws to stop practicing philosophy, he is willing to disobey. This allows two options, either Socrates is going against his own moral standards of not wronging another, or this agreement is somehow an unjust agreement. Assuming that Socrates is true to all his claims he would not wrong another under any circumstances. This leaves the agreement to obey the orders of the Athenian Laws to stop practicing philosophy as an unjust agreement.
In the days of Socrates, the worshiping of the Gods the accepted norm. People gave thanks to the Gods, and made sacrifices in their honor. These citizens also listen to Oracles, who claimed to speck on the behalf of the Gods. In a society that see a virtue in finding favor with the Gods, it is logical to assume that to disobey the Gods would be a terrible thing to do. Additionally, since all citizens
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
As he discusses his situation with Crito, Socrates refutes some of Crito's basic assumptions. Curiously, however, Socrates does not examine his own assumptions; he never once asks if his agreement with Athens is "just." He correctly assumes that Athens' congeniality to him obligates him to follow the tenets of the agreement, but he does not ask if Athens feels similarly obligated. This question is central, for if Athens fails to uphold its part of the agreement the agreement cannot be just and Socrates is freed from any duty to it. I will argue that Socrates' own reasoning, particularly that used in Crito and Euthyphro, will prove that it is not only not wrong to break the agreement, but also that it is wrong to abide by an unjust agreement, such as...
...uments are completely different. Crito wants Socrates to escape because he doesn’t deserve to die because he did nothing wrong. Socrates argues back that if he escapes he will be breaking the law. Which is the thing that he is trying to uphold. Socrates believes that escaping will go against all the things he has been arguing and teaching the youth.
Therefore, socrates does not believe his life to be worth living if he does not live in accordance with the good life, which he asserts is the just life (48b), which Crito also agrees to. Furthermore, Socrates argued that no one should ever willingly do wrong, even when one is done wrong to, which Crito agrees to as well (49d). Socrates argues since the law is just, as he had lived under them, been protected by them, and he did not try to change it, while he had the chance. Therefore, Socrates believed that he could not break the law, after he had benefited from them. The laws create order, and undermining them for a single citizen would be a crime against his country (51a). Country, Socrates says, is honored by the gods and more important that honoring one’s mother and father (51b). Socrates, then, should not break the law because he would be willingly committing injustice against the state. A state that has been good to him, that he was a citizen in, and raised sons in (52d). Also, by escaping, he would be proving his accusers right, because one that did not obey the law and escaped his punishment would be seen as a criminal, which is what his accusers want him to be seen as.
In “Crito,” Plato uses Socrates as a tool to argue the point. Socrates is in jail for “preaching false gods” and “corrupting the youth” by causing them to doubt or disregard the wisdom of their elders. His friend Crito comes to visit and pleads with him to escape from his imprisonment and death sentence. Socrates asks Crito to give him one good reason that will hold up to scrutiny to persuade him, and then he will choose to escape. Crito brings up how people would think of him because he wouldn’t spend his money to get his friend out of jail. Socrates goes on to nullify this argument by saying that opinions of the populace doesn’t matter, only the opinion of the authority should be taken into consideration. Socrates also says that he shouldn’t mind dying considering he had a long and full life. He goes on to point out that, the point of living is not to live long but to live well. Moreover, that to live well, one has to live honorably. He feels that he has lived a good life and if he were to escape, then he wouldn’t be living honorably, thus not making life worth living. Crito gives him a few other reasons including; thinking about his family (who would raise his children?), thinking about his followers (they don’t want him to die), and that the guilty verdict was wrong and unfair (few Athenians really wanted him put to death). Socrates then goes on to explain that his friends would raise his children, as he would wish. Also, he would be a mockery to his followers if he were to go against his own preaching. Lastly, the guilty verdict may be wrong and unfair, but it was the wrongdoing of man and not the laws, so why should he disobey the laws? He feels a state cannot exist without laws that are followed. Because he dismantled all of Crito’s arguments, he proved that there is no reason not to follow the laws. The laws raised him. He...
This is why after firmly establishing this first truth on justice, Socrates moves on to his next point. This point is that if Socrates escaped he would be acting unjustly, because he would be breaking his agreement and mistreating his state. First Socrates addresses how leaving would hurt the state. Socrates brings up this dilemma by asking Crito, “Do you think that a city can still exist without being overturn, if the legal judgements rendered within it possess no force, but are nullified or invalidated by individuals?” By leaving Socrates would be breaking the law, which is the foundation of order in any state. If all broke the law such as Crito encourages Socrates to do than the rules would be void and the state would fall into chaos. Next Socrates reminds Crito that as a citizen under the law he had agreed to follow the entirety of the law. It was through the work of the law that Socrates was born and well educated. Than later Socrates was even given the chance to make his own choice about being a citizen or not. By becoming a citizen Socrates freely accepted the laws of his country and all the privileges they included. Thus Socrates would be unjustly treating the state by breaking the law only because now it no longer benefited him. To further emphasis his point to Crito, Socrates compares his
Here, I would like to ask you, the men of Athens, firstly, why at all should Socrates have mentioned everything I just said, if he really does not believe in god as some of you accused? Moreover, how dare you to accuse such a man, who serves the gods at all expenses and even risks his life for it? Doesn’t such a man deserve our respect? Furthermore, as we believe in our gods, how dare we put such terrible charges upon the wisest man of Athens, who is sent by the gods to awake us Athenians?
To flee or not to flee, that is the question. Whether it is right to stay true to your values or to fight for justice; but which one has a better stance? As much as Crito tries to convince Socrates that he is in prison for the wrong reasons, Socrates chooses to stay. Socrates chooses to stay because he has the willingness to accept the penalty. His just laws are his conscience and moral obligation, while the unjust laws are convention. Those who believe that Socrates should flee may seem like the right thing to do since he is wrongfully convicted, but I believe that the choice of Socrates staying is the right thing to do. Socrates set the belief that to do wrong is never good and one should not go against that value. If one is wronged,
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question of what exactly caused his death and why was Socrates, such a remarkable thinker sentenced to death in the very society that valued democracy the most is not easy and straightforward to answer. There are multiple elements involved that finally caused this tragedy in which “a person of high moral principle is confronted step by step with a situation from which there is no escape” (38). First of all, the moral principle and belief in divinity held by Socrates are inconsistent with those of the Athenian society, implying the very crimes charged upon Socrates were not completely groundless. Secondly, the imperfect juridical system of Athens played a role in causing this tragedy. What’s more, Socrates himself, could have offered better defense in the court, also had a hand in his own death by his stubbornness regarding to his own interpretation of wisdom and piety. His rebuttal, though brilliant and insightful, was not persuasive enough to move the fellow-citizens for his wrong approach and sophistry in his cross-examination on Meletus.
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.
Plato’s “The Apology”, is an account of Socrates’ time on trial. Socrates is on trial for two charges, created by two groups of accusers. The initial charge is of “not recognizing the gods recognized by the state” and the second is for “corrupting the youth”. While Plato’s work is called “The Apology”, it is not meant to be considered an apology in the way it is understood in modern day, but rather the current title of Plato’s work is a translation from a Greek word that actually meant “a defense”. That was exactly what Socrates was attempting to do as he stood on trial.
In conclusion, I believe that it is blaspheme that Socrates is accused of corrupting Athenian’s children’s mind. He should not have received the death penalty, but I do understand it was by preference. I think that Socrates let his opinions get in the way of clear judgment when Crito tried to help him escape. However, I do realize why Socrates did not want to escape. Socrates made valid points by declaring that he does not believe in vengeances, disbeliefs in public opinions, and the personification of the Athenian government being seen as a father figure; as well as, not wanting to exile from his homeland. Although, these moral values were instilled in his mind he still could have chosen banishment instead to save his life to continue educating people. Therefore, even though Socrates is not physically alive, his philosophy continues.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
In “The Apology”, Socrates is being accused of not following the religion that time the law believes he should follow. Those accusers accused Socrates that he is an atheist and that is bad for Athenian and people who live there. They low put Socrates in front of a trial, so that he is able to explain to judge why he doesn't believe in same God that others believe. During the trial period, Socrates explains how they there have been old accusers that say Socrates is an evildoer and a curious person who is destroying the Athenian with his outstanding knowledge. His defense was started by saying that those accusers are lying, and he is going to prove it in the court. He takes permission from the jury to confess him to talk alike as he talks always.
...ns. Why would he do this if he did not see the laws of Athens as just? In order to fulfill the agreement he has made with Athenian law, Socrates must accept the punishment he is given, though he feels that his being punished is Athens wronging him. It would be wrong, by his view, to escape from prison, though he would not be pursued, because he would be breaking his agreement to obey Athenian law. Since he and Crito previously agreed that one must never do wrong, he simply must stay in jail until his death. This is merely one example of the way in which Socrates uses a method of logical dialogue in order to make his point. He appears to be unmatched in his skills of deduction and consistently demonstrates his love of knowledge and truth. Socrates exemplifies all that is philosophy, both as a student and a teacher, because of his constant, active pursuit of wisdom.