“The irreverent, disobedient Socrates of the Apology is inconsistent with the Socrates of the Crito.” Construct an argument supporting or refuting this claim. Be sure to incorporate textual evidence. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates comes off as a defiant and disobedient man with little respect for his accusers and even for the jurors on whom his fate depends. This may seem in stark contrast with the stoic Socrates in Crito who would rather accept the death sentence than let his friend Crito help him escape from prison. However, this superficial inconsistency is in fact just different manifestations of Socrates’ conviction in upholding justice as the most important guiding principle of how to live his life. As a result, the perceived …show more content…
As arrogant and aggressive as he was in Apology, mocking his accusers (Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon), refusing to propose an emotional appeal in front of the jury, and suggesting that he should be treated like a “victor in the races at Olympia” with “free dining in the Prytaneum” (Apology 36d), he was very stoic and calm in Crito. Knowing that he will have to end his life the next day, he sleeps well, talks of his impending death without emotions, and patiently reasons with Crito why he will not attempt to escape from prison because it would be unjust to do so. This superficial inconsistency is in fact not an inconsistency at all. In both situations, Socrates’ defiance is directed towards injustice and death, which he does not deem important at all. Again, this goes back to his conviction of living justly. He views death as an unknown entity, hence not necessarily a wicked thing. After knowing that the death sentence is inevitable, he says “I suspect that this thing that has happened to me is a blessing, and we are quite mistaken in supposing death to be an evil” (Apology 40c). In Crito, he reasons that escaping death indeed would be the wicked thing: “in that place beyond when our brothers, the Laws of Hades, know that you have done your best to destroy even us (the Laws), they will not receive you with a kindly welcome” (Crito 54c). Socrates’ contradictory manners are the results of the same principles that
As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in
In The Apology of Socrates, Socrates is defending himself in his own trial, supposedly trying to avoid the death penalty for multiple infractions on the city of Athens and its’ society. He argues that the jurors if they were to convict him, that they would be the ones that would be harmed in doing so; not Socrates. This explanation of harm is contrary to many people’s belief of what the judicial system is supposed to accomplish. The role of the judicial system is to punish people for the crimes that they have committed and provided enough of a deterrent, so that the crimes will stop being committed.
In the Dialogue Crito, Socrates employs his Elenchus to examine the notion of justice and one’s obligation to justice. In the setting of the dialogue, Socrates has been condemned to die, and Crito comes with both the hopes and the means for Socrates to escape from prison. When Socrates insists that they should examine whether he should escape or not, the central question turns into whether if it is unjust to disobey laws. Socrates’ ultimate answer is that it is unjust; he makes his argument by first showing that it’s wrong to revenge injustice, then arguing that he has made an agreement with the city’s law for its benefits, and finally reasoning that he
In the Apology and Crito, Socrates explains his reasoning, stating that it is better to be wronged, than to do wrong. Socrates was explaining to Crito than even though in their opinion that Socrates being put to death is wrong that they cannot do something wrong also. In the Crito one of Socrates main points is that “Even if your enemies have wronged you, you still have to do the right thing”. Socrates isn’t rejecting self-defense he rejects the notion of doing something wrong back to the person or the city. One of the many people putting Socrates to death, Meleteus is simply damaging his soul by doing such an injustice. In the Apology Socrates explains Socrates goes on to explain that he is damaging his soul, and if Socrates escapes,
In “The Apology”, Plato’s written account of Socrates’ trial, Socrates rhetorical goal is not only to exonerate himself from the crimes he’s been accused of, but, more importantly, to show how he is devoted to the pursuit of justice. Socrates shows this by demonstrating his determination for doing what is righteous, rather than focusing on being abdicated from his crimes. Throughout his speech, Socrates uses an emotional appeal to establish himself as being on the side of truth, justice, and wisdom, and shows that by trusting in his words, the jurymen would also be in support of these principles. Furthermore, Socrates is able to establish his support of the truth and justice by addressing specific rumors and accusations set against him using an appeal to logic. These logical appeals are used to show how his defense is the truth and that the allegations against him are opinion, rumor, and unjust.
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
In the Apology Socrates is a very simple man he is Plato’s favorite character based on his personality of appearance. To convey his ideas about honesty and rightness. The peculiar of a method applied in Apology is about an argument which Socrates used to expressed by Plato in The Apology (Steven 29p) uses to defend himself in the course of a court-martial. Plato’s Apology is an example of how Socrates speech makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the city, The complaint of Socrates is based on fear people of the man’s thinking which inspires the youth by original ideas and exposure of the ignorance and corruption in the unawareness and dishonesty in the upper circles of the state. Socrates
The Apology was written by Plato as an account of the defense that Socrates presented during the trial in which he was condemned to death. Socrates gave this apologia, or defense of one’s actions, against the accusations that he did not believe in any gods, and that he was corrupting the young men of Athens. Not being as skillful in the art of oratory as his accusers, Socrates admitted that he would, as plainly as possible, present only truthful and logical refutes to the accusations that were against him. Being wise in the way of rhetoric, Socrates used pathos, ethos, and logos to argue in his defense. Although ultimately executed, Socrates masterfully defended himself in court and proved that he was a man of both virtue and wisdom.
As Socrates awaits his upcoming execution; he is visited before dawn by a close old friend Crito. Crito has made arrangements to help Socrates escape from prison. Socrates is grateful to his old friend for his willing to help aide him in the escape. However, Socrates is quite willing to await his execution. Crito tries to change Socrates mind about escaping by presenting him with several arguments. The first is that if Socrates choices to stay, his death will reflect poorly on Crito. The people will think that Crito did nothing to save his friend. If Socrates is worried about the risk or the financial cost to Crito; it’s an expense that he is willing to pay, and that he made arrangements for Socrates to live a life of exile in a pleasant
In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.
Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.
Unlike the Apology, the Crito seems intended to exhibit the character of Socrates in one
According to the majority of the jury members of Athens, Socrates is a corruption to the youth, doer of evil and does not agree with the gods of his people. In the Apology, written by Plato these are the assumptions and accusations Socrates is held in court for. In court, he is faced with what most men fear, being wrongly accused leading to the death sentence. Socrates argues and strives to prove that he has no fear of being hated, being accused of serious crimes, being threatened with punishment, or being put to death.
In The Crito by Socrates, both Crito and Socrates present arguments, one that Socrates should escape prison, and one that he should not. Crito’s argument contains logic fallacies that undermine his argument and make it weak. Therefore, Socrates argument that he should remain in prison and face his death is valid and strong, and is better than Crito’s.
In this paper, I will show why Socrates’ arguments on choosing to stay in prison is better than Crito’s argument. As an inexperienced reader in philosophy, I believe it would be difficult for a reader to choose a side. This is because both sides of their arguments can be easily refuted. Thus, the question to be answered is: Whose argument is more effective? Socrates’ arguments yield to specific scenarios that shows how his action could harm the state of Athens and his future life whereas Crito’s arguments are narrower and geared more to himself. Hence, after meticulous analysis, Socrates made the right decision by staying in prison and not letting Crito convincing him to commit an unjust action.