Socrates 's ' The Apology And Crito '

Immortality, the ability to live forever, is a powerful theme addressed throughout history and literature. The Greeks were one of the first to analyze and investigate how one can obtain everlasting life. In Plato’s Apology of Socrates and Crito and Virgil’s Aeneid, fathers reach immortality by passing on lessons to their offspring, but Aeneas acts as a biological father to his son whereas Socrates is a philosophical father and his sons are his followers. These differences in fatherhood ultimately create different kinds of son figures as Aeneas teaches Ascanius to be a leader more like himself whereas Socrates pushes his sons to be philosophers themselves.

In the Crito, Socrates believes that breaking the laws of the city harms all of society. The consequences of escaping the city outweigh the benefits for it puts his family, his friends, and himself in danger. He believes in a personal morality that one must live a good and just life, and not just any life. If Socrates breaks the law then he would not be acting justly,

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

The fight to do what is right is not an easy path to traverse, but is one which demands a noble and enduring character. Defending principles of justice with logic and reason in the face of political opposition, is a difficult task to take, but the elusive Socrates boldly undertook this endeavor. In Plato’s Apology, he recalls the daring defence of the principles of truth that Socrates took against all odds. Plato’s recollections, much like the trial of Socrates at the time, has sparked numerous debates amongst scholars who seek to understand the events of the trial more deeply. One such debate has centered on what Socrates meant when he said his speech was nothing more than words spoken at random. Brumbaugh and Oldfather, in their scholarly analysis, contend that Socrates’s speech is riddled with fine polish and organization suggesting that his speech was not random. As will be discussed, there are several examples of organization in Socrates’s speech such as when he provides his jurors with an outline of his speech. Additionally, masterfully woven throughout his defence, Socrates employed many diverse modes of argumentation in a logical and consistent manner lending credence to the notion that he planned his speech beforehand. This skillful use of these modes in Socrates’s argument, all vindicate an intentional design and premeditation. Despite Socrates’s humble assertions

By living in Athen for 70 years Socrates has agreed to have faith in the cities virtues and in the force of decisions that are imposed upon him and as a citizen he respects them. Any person that disobeys these laws deliberately attempts to destroy these laws and the society that has created them: "However, that whoever of you remains when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions." (51e). If the decisions of the city are not respected as honourable, the structure of that civilization will fall to pieces. If a person is found violating the standards of his or her society and does not accept the consequences of his or her actions there can't be a system of law that construct order. "You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war or be wounded or killed you must obey."(51b)

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

Crito believes that Socrates is acting unjustly by staying in prison. Deciding to stay in prison, Socrates letting his enemies treat him the way they want to and by doing so

In The Crito, Socrates’ states that he abides by his principles, and guides his reflection by reasons. Thus, Socrates’ argues that his escape from prison will compromise the principles, upon which he defended himself during the trial. In The Apology, Socrates’ mentioned that “the difficulty is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death” (25). Hence, Socrates’ escape would have contradicted his own principle of being righteous. Furthermore, Socrates’ persistence in teaching philosophy convinced him to be condemned to death rather than to exile. In addition, in The Apology, Socrates’ mentioned that any person, who believes that Socrates should be ashamed of his life, is mistaken. Moreover, Socrates’

     Through my reading of Plato's Apology of Socrates and Crito, I have been able to see how Socrates makes important decisions and what he primarily bases his decisions on. As a individual person we have individual morals which lead us to our own moral or immoral decisions. Sometimes are own morals or beliefs might oppose the views of the state or the enforced law that clams to find justice. In this case we rely on our own beliefs that may be through passed down morals or through ones belief in a higher power to find justice. In my view I feel that Socrates respects the states law and ability to find justice but is willing to question it when his own morals or views on justice conflict

Early in the Apology, Socrates argues that the charges of Meletus are not only false, but have led to the rise of prejudice against him, and he demonstrates this through what he considers his own reflection on the charges against him. Socrates suggests the indictment against him should read: “Socrates is guilty of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heaven, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others the same things”. Socrates suggests that the breadth of the indictment against him could encompass the premises supported by many men, and that it is only through the prejudice against him, the belief in his wisdom purported by some, and the sense that Socrates has influenced men that has resulted in the charges, not through the true belief that Socrates has taken actions against the State.

After reading “The Apology,” I decided to respond about how Socrates used the Socratic Method during his trial. Socrates, using this method, crafted a personal defense against the allegations laid upon him and, at the same time, Socrates led Miletus to trap himself as a part of that defense. I believe that Socrates’ decision to defend himself in this manner brings up some important considerations. First, Socrates using the Socratic Method as an integral part of his defense not only unraveled most of Miletus’ support, but Socrates was able to showcase his wisdom to the people of the court to show them what kind of person Socrates was when he acted as he usual did. Secondly, Socrates, through his attack on Miletus showed the people of the court the potential threat that Socrates could have been this entire time had that been his focus. Both of these considerations are possible only because Socrates’ used his method of questioning to craft a defense for himself.

To understand King’s views on nonviolent protest, I will start by summarizing some of the main points in his “Letter from Birmingham jail”. In spite of the fact that the "Letter” is verifiably worried with justice all through, King likewise addresses the question specifically at a few focuses. In actuality, he places that justice maintains the poise of the human soul, while injustice conflicts with it. By talking about this idea by and large, he builds up criteria by which to obscurely assault both segregation and silence it. He at last suggests that the man who sees injustice and does nothing to stop it is acting unjustly also. Taking after this thought, he contends that laws must be permeated with an ethical sense so as to be just; as such, law and morality can not be viewed as independent interests or areas. The best way to really enact change and help humankind rise above its confinements is to act with as well as grasp “extremism”. According to Mott, “That this action had been termed “extreme” King admits “initially disappointed” him.” But King decides that if loyalty to good principles

   In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself.  In Socrates' case, the situation is no different.  One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to.  Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed.  Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?

Socrates, however, was not trying to make the youth go against the laws. In fact, Socrates told his followers that they should live by the laws because the laws were needed. As in the Crito, Socrates mentions that to go against the laws would be the wrong thing to do. The society of Athens, made laws for the people to follow. These laws were made to keep order. Socrates understood and respected that the laws

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates talks about his obligations to follow the law. Although Socrates understands that the Athenian democracy has committed an unjust action by sentencing him to death, he is unwilling to escape with Crito. He understands that an injustice should not be answered with injustice, but there are times when one should question the law. In Socrates’ Defense and the Crito, Plato discusses when one ought to follow the law and when ought to not follow the law. One not only has the obligations to follow the law, but they are also obliged to break the law if it is unjust because it will then improve The Law.