Essay: A Discussion on whether or not I believe that Socrates’ views in the Crito contradict his views expressed in the Apology.
My position: I am in disagreement with this statement and my analysis, based on contextual evidence, is as follows:
Although I could argue the question posited above from either position, as many have done before and, as many will continue to do after me, I do not believe that Socrates waivers in his beliefs between the two accounts according to Plato. The contradiction, it seems, focuses on whether or not Socrates is a proponent of civil (dis)obedience, and the apparent conflict between the two works revolves around passages from the Apology, that seem to be in opposition to his stated convictions in the dialogue between he and Crito. These passages seem to suggest that Socrates is in favor of breaking Athenian law when they are deemed to be unjust or immoral. Just who and how one would determine injustice and immorality in any particular case is in question and seems to add to the perception of inconsistency. In the Apology, Socrates presents his defense against accusations that he has not only corrupted the youth of Athens with his incessant Philosophizing, but, that he is also guilty of impiety, being an atheist, or rather, not believing in the city gods and introducing new gods (Apology 24b-c). Summarily, Socrates does not answer the accusations directly in the dialogue of his defense, but rather, he uses a cross-examination strategy against his accusers Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, to convince the jury that he is not guilty of corrupting the youth any more than any other Athenian citizen (Apology 19e-20c). And more importantly, he contends that the main reason he now faces a ju...
... middle of paper ...
...f the majority who do not understand justice, injustice and truth. Socrates seems to care nothing about death, as is stated in both the Apology and the Crito, but states purely, “that my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious” (Apology 32d). Additionally, as stated in the personification of laws argument in the Crito, because Socrates decided to live his whole life in Athens, get married, educate and raise his children there, among everything else, his obedience to the society and the laws of Athens overall, should not have been in question. His firm commitment to obey the court order of his execution in the Crito, resisting his friends frenetic request to flee, resulting in him paying the ultimate price for his convictions, should be the final testament to his outstanding virtue and unwavering ethics.
Works Cited
Plato's Apology and Crito
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.
King was well aware of the laws, and knew that his protests, even peaceful, would have resistance to it. Yet, at the same time King didn’t care that it would’ve been illegal. He clearly stated that any law that he feels is unjust, he would fight against it whether it was legal to do so or not. The same can be said of Socrates in Crito, because he knows he got there for disobeying the law. In the eyes of the law, he corrupted the youth of Athens by exposing them to questioning and examining everything around them. When he is questioned why he doesn’t want to attempt to escape his death, he states that he feels it is unjust to escape. Socrates did what he believed his job was, which was to enlighten the youth to the unjust ways of society. While the way he was punished for it was unjust, Socrates stated that he has lived a happy life, and if he can’t rightly persuade the Laws of Athens to change its mind and let him go then he can accept
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
In conclusion, Xenophon’s Apology successfully vindicates the Socrates’ defense of his piety in so far as it shows that Socrates holds a belief in that is no different than the one
In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for his so called, “corruption of the youth,” because of his philosophies. He is straightforward and confused about the chargers brought up against him. Socrates raises an argument in his defense and believes he has no reason to be sorry. Socrates believes if he is punished and killed, no one would around to enlighten the people. This view draws a connection to the question posed, “Are we
In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God but that is one god that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.
(24b-8) I believe that Socrates is wholly innocent of the first accusation against him of corrupting the youth. Socrates responds to Meletus’ claims in a similar fashion to how he responds to each of the accusations. Socrates explains how firstly, that Meletus is indifferent towards the young people of Athens and therefore infers that he cannot have any idea on how Socrates positively or negatively affects the youth. (24d-25c) Socrates then says, “No, either I’m not corrupting the young or, if I am corrupting them, it’s unintentionally.” (25e6-26a) This, in my opinion confirms that Socrates is innocence. Socrates then debunks the two following claims in one statement. Socrates paraphrases Meletus’ argument in order to express the hypocrisy in his statement, “Socrates is guilty of not acknowledging gods but of acknowledging gods.” (27a4-27a5) This analysis by Socrates shows that you cannot indict some body of both not acknowledging gods but then acknowledging beings that are either akin to or children of the former. And that in order to not acknowledge the gods; one cannot acknowledge something that is related to the belief of the gods. (27b-27d) In my opinion, both of these statements show Socrates’ innocence as he is not corrupting the youth in a criminal manner as it is either unintentional or not at all, and the last two charges contradict themselves making them inherently both
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
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 reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Some of the best sources of information about Socrates' philosophical views are the early dialogues of his student Plato, who tried to provide a faithful picture of the methods and teachings of the great master. The Apology is one of the many-recorded dialogues about Socrates. It is about how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth, believing in no god(s) (Atheism) and for being a Sophist. He attended his trial and put up a good argument. I believe that Socrates was wrongfully accused and should not have been sentenced to death. Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges.
In the Crito, Socrates debates with his friend and follower Crito on escaping from prison where Socrates awaits execution. Crito unsuccessfully attempts to persuade Socrates to escape from prison but the latter is adamant and opts to remain in prison and meet his fate. This paper argues that Socrates had strong convictions in his arguments. Therefore, the paper defends Socrates decision citing it as accurate and commendable even though it marked the end of his life. Firstly, the paper examines Crito’s propositions exhibiting the eminent strong points as well as the destabilizing shortcomings. The second part examines Socrates defense outlining why it was the rightful choice. The main attention will be on Socrates core argument founded on justice and doing injustice maligns one’s soul. Therefore, the paper concludes by phrasing that it is not worth to live with a tainted, distraught and ruined soul.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
...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.