The Pros And Cons Of Socrates

If we could not tell from his punishment, surely the fact that we are reading four separate texts about Socrates indicates that his trial and death by hemlock were both important and controversial. In all three of Plato’s texts (Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito), he looks to defend Socrates from the charges against him: namely corrupting the youth of Athens by disseminating his philosophical teachings in the agora. Interestingly enough, Plato does so through dialectics with Socrates as the main charatcer. While all three works do well to defend Socrates, it is Crito that serves as the best defense of Socrates, and, more importantly, his philosophy. In defending his philosophy, Plato does not simply walk us through it, rather he weaves into a narrative that we both invest ourselves in and truly learn from; Crito best defends Socrates and the activity of philosophy because it puts Socrates’ convictions into action and more effectively carries Plato’s message. Before going

Socrates claims that the most important thing is that we must not just live, but we must live well (106). What this suggests is that there is something “more paltry than the body,” something that must be guided if we are to find value in our life. In following the tenets of Socrates’ philosophy, one is able to live a just life, which equates to living a good life. This is perhaps the largest defense of Socrates and his philosophy, something that is not as explicit in Plato’s other works. In claiming that living well (i.e. in accordance with justice) is all that matters, Plato is giving the reader a clear definition of what philosophy is good for if adhered to: it ensures that all people act just, creating a just and livable world. What this all amounts to is that philosophy, specifically Socrates’ philosophy, is both important and defendable because it acts as a guide for our morality and