Plato, Crito Essay

Plato, Crito Essay.

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 should keep to that agreement and accept its consequences.

However, the examination in Crito was incompletely and its logic flawed; in making this decision, Socrates has forsaken his life for his ideal of justice.

The examination was done in the elenchus, which has the structure that Socrates will start with an assumption and find contradictions to eliminate possible answers; the assumption here is that there are good reasons why Socrates should escape from prison. Socrates starts his argument by first eliminating the public opinion as a reason why he should escape.

Socrates observes that concerning a person’s health, only a doctor’s opinion would matter instead of the public opinion; he then draws a parallel of that analogy to justice, that “We should not give so much thought to what the majority of people will say about us, but think instead of what the person who understands just and unjust things will say… ” (Crito 48b) While the public opinion would certainly urge Socrates to preserve his life, Socrates discredits it as a reason for his escape.

Next Socrates assumes that since only a good life is worth living, and that living a good life is the same as living a just life (Crito 48b), Socrates should escape for his life only if it is just for him to do so. Effectively, Socrates has reduced the question to whether if it is just to disobey the law (by escaping prison and execution) to decide if he should escape. To this question, first Socrates says that he should not revenge injustice. Because doing injustice is bad in any circumstances (Crito 49b), to return injustice just because of having injustice done onto himself would bad also (Crito 49c).

Therefore Socrates should not commit injustice just to get even with Athens. Injustice is bad because it harms, and disobedience to the law would harm the city (Crito 50b); so it seems that to disobey the law would be an injustice. But why should Socrates obey the law of the city? Socrates reasons that since the city has done him great benefactions, such as giving birth to his life, taking care of his physical upbringing and his education, and granting him long years of benefits from the legal system (Crito 50e – 51c), Socrates owns the state a strong duty of gratitude just as a child would own to his father.

One of those duties is to obey the state (like how a child obeys his parents), which always has included the possibility of death such as in times of war (Crito 51b). Socrates should obey the city because he has made an agreement to do so. This agreement is the social contract that he has implicitly accepted and lived under for 70 years.

This contract is legitimate because Socrates had a thorough understanding of the legal system (Crito 51e – 52a), he did not leave the city when he was given the fair chance all his life (Crito 51 c-e), and that he even has consciously benefited legally from this implicit agreement with law all his life. Therefore it is evident that Socrates has made such a social contract with Athens, which he has been satisfied with so far. It is just for one to keep the agreement he has made, therefore Socrates should keep the agreement made with Athens; and thus he should obey the state and its laws (Crito 53c).

Furthermore, Socrates has been given the chance to convince Athens not sentence him to death, and he even could’ve proposed to be exiled that would have the same consequences as if he escapes now; if Socrates had the chance to accomplish thise with legal means when he did not, he would not be justified to do so now illegally (Crito 52c). Following this reasoning, Socrates concludes that he should not escape from prison and his eventual execution. Although Socrates’ commitment to his ideals is admirable, his reasoning is critically flawed. Socrates lacks the definition of justice throughout the discussion of justice.

Socrates certainly thinks of justice as something intrinsic and absolute, instead of simply laws imposed by the state; this is evident when he refused to arrest Leon of Salamis by the order of the 30 tyrants (which is an act of disobedience) on the grounds of justice (Apology 32c). Clearly he believes that justice is higher than rulings of sovereignty. But Socrates never made clear what is this virtue that makes justice just; instead, he only vaguely calls some actions just, such as when one keeps an agreement, or behaves well towards one’s parents.

It is because of this lack of definition Socrates ends up contradicting himself. For instance, Socrates makes the proposition that one should seek expert knowledge instead of following majority opinion when it comes to justice; this would imply that the justice is not related to the opinion of the majority, as well as that the majority are no expert in justice. If the social contract in the democratic Athens is assumed to be an agreement made between by the majority of the society, then justice is certainly independent from that social contract.

But later Socrates argues that he has to obey the state’s laws and keep the agreement made to the state, which implies that justice is to keep the social contract (contraposition of “not keeping to the contract is unjust”). Furthermore, Socrates assumes that disobeying laws and agreements is unjust. But what is the state? It is no more than a collective of Athenians. Where do these laws come from? The majority opinion of the Athenians (in the case of the tyrants Socrates wouldn’t obey the laws anyways) and the agreements they’ve made.

If indeed the laws and agreements the majority of Athenians, it seems that they determine what’s just without knowing what’s just (or else their opinion would matter! ), which would be unacceptable for Socrates. Furthermore, Socrates’ gratitude and duty towards the state does not equate obeying the state; in-fact, if killing Socrates is an injustice that would do Athens harm, then Socrates ought to do whatever that is in his power to prevent being executed by escaping to fulfill his duty of benefiting the city. There is another more fundamental flaw in Socrates’ argument.

If he considers justice to be morally independent of laws, then some laws would be just and other unjust. There could be unjust laws, or just laws abused. Socrates never considered these cases of whether he indeed justly deserves the death sentence or not. Therefore to simply obey laws may not necessarily lead to justice. This argument would destroy the whole purpose of obeying laws and not escape from prison. We may speculate, if we have presented these arguments to Socrates, would he be convinced to escape prison?

Perhaps not, as Socrates is already 70 and was expected to die soon anyways (the average life span for male was around 40). Dying in the name of justice, instead of old age in a distant place, is definitely more romantic and held more appeal. Furthermore, to live in exile would have no positive effect on his children, it would tarnish his reputation, and such a life in exile will not be enjoyable (Crito 53d – 54d). Therefore, it would be possible that Socrates will still choose to die as a martyr to justice and philosophy.

Plato, Crito Essay

Research Paper on Plato Essay

Research Paper on Plato Essay.

Abstract Many Philosophers made a difference in society but Plato is perhaps recognized as the most famous. His writings have had a profound effect on people, politics, and the philosophy throughout the centuries. He was a public figure and he made major contributions to society. Plato helped to lay the philosophical foundations of modern culture through his ideas and writings. One of the most philosophical thinkers of Western civilization, Plato is the only author from ancient Greek times whose writings survive intact.

His collection consists of thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters, though the authorship of some is contested.

Plato was born in Athens, into a prosperous aristocratic family. His Father’s name was Ariston and his Mother’s name was Perictione. His relative named Glaucon was one of the best-known members of the Athenian nobility. Plato’s name was Aristocles, his nickname Plato originates from wrestling circles, Plato means broad, and it probably refers either to his physical appearance or his wrestling style.

“Plato is, by any reckoning, one of the most dazzling writers in the Western literary tradition and one of the most penetrating, wide-ranging, and influential authors in the history of philosophy,” (Kraut, 2009).

Plato was born during the Golden Age of Athens’s which saw the birth of classical architecture, drama, arts and politics. However, as he was growing up he observed the decline of Athens as a cultural center. He witnessed instances of cruelty, disloyalty, and dishonesty and it was in clear violation of his values. It was also during this time that Plato fell under the influence of Socrates, who engaged the people of Athens in philosophical discussions. “It was into this bright, sly, worldly atmosphere that Socrates appeared, moving questioningly about the streets of Athens”.

(Plato 1984). In 339 Socrates was brought to trial and charged with having false Gods and corrupting the youth. Socrates was found guilty on the charge and was sentenced to death. The execution of Socrates weighed heavily on Plato and he turned away from politics, he thought the behavior of the courts was unjust. He decided not to get involved in political life, instead he decided to leave Athens with other friends of Socrates to travel and study. During his travels he met with all kinds of people and studied not only philosophy but geometry, astronomy, and religious teachings.

Socrates was extremely influential to Plato and he was the main character in numerous writings, he was also influenced by Heraclitus, Parmenides, and the Pythagoreans. One of the most important goals Plato set for himself was to keep the memory of Socrates alive by recording and bringing about the kind of impact that Socrates had on people. Nearly all of Plato’s work takes the structure of dialogues in which Socrates is usually the main character. One of the goals of a Plato’s dialogue is to engross the reader in philosophical questions related to the ideas being discussed.

The Socrates of the Platonic dialogues is modeled after the real Socrates but it is in part an imaginary character used to impart Platonic themes. Plato’s dialogues are divided into three groups, the early or Socratic dialogues; the dialogues of middle age; and the dialogues of old age. In the early dialogues, Socrates is the main character, but it is generally believed that Plato is expressing his own views. These are the only remaining dialogues of Socrates teachings hence; they are referred to as the Socratic dialogues. In The Apology Socrates was accused of having false gods and corrupting the youth.

While on trial Socrates claimed that he was innocent and was not at all wise, “Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy… Understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times. ” (Plato 1984). Middle Dialogues During Plato’s middle period he wrote the following, Meno, Republic, Euthydemus, Menexenus, Cratylus, Phaedrus, Symposium and Phaedo. The most important difference between these writings and his earlier works is that he is establishing his own voice in philosophy.

In the Meno Plato introduces us to the Socratic idea that no one knowingly does wrong, “Virtue is the desire of things honourable and the power of attaining them. ” Plato (1984). In the Phaedo we become familiar with the platonic doctrine of the Forms; this is where Plato makes a claim as to the immortality of the soul. Plato’s most influential work, The Republic, is part of the middle dialogues. It is a discussion of the virtues of justice, courage and wisdom. It addresses the question of how do humans approach living a good life. The dialogue finishes by looking at various forms of government and describing the ideal state.

The allegory of the “Myth of the Cave” is also in The Republic it is an important writing because it contains the main points of his philosophy. It is intended to be a metaphor for education and it explains issues regarding the theory of knowledge. Plato believed one must explore the belief that a greater reality exists. It is through this belief that a person can gain greater insight into true reality and become enlightened. Without it we are like the prisoners of a cave who only see the shadows of objects and live in complete darkness. “And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened, behold!

Human beings living in an underground den” (Plato 1927). It is only through philosophy that we can come out of the cave into the true world. “Who is best suited to rule the state – lovers of opinion or “true philosophers”? (Plato 1927) His final years at the Academy he wrote the later dialogues which included the Parmenides, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesmas, Timaeus, Critias, Philebus, and Laws. It should be noted that Socrates has a minor role in these writings. Plato examines his metaphysical theories through these dialogues. He discusses art, dance, music, poetry, drama, and ethics in connection to immortality and the mind.

He also dedicates himself to the philosophy of mathematics, politics and religion. Plato argued that women were qualified to play a role in politics and philosophy. In The Republic, Socrates argued that women were as capable as men in pursuit of accomplishments. There is a suggestion that women should be educated for their roles in the class of guardians and possibly work next to men. A woman’s role could be significant in society, but different from a man’s role. Even though Plato believed that women were necessary in a working society, he did not mean he thought women were equals of men.

Plato thought that women lacked the strength of men and that women were more suited for other responsibilities in life. “If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things. ” (Plato 1927) The impact of Plato’s work cannot be measured or calculated. His writings had great influence on the entire intellectual development of Western civilization. Despite the fact that Plato did not leave a well-formed, rigid philosophical system he is considered the father for all forms of philosophical idealism and dualism.

“The object of education is to teach us to love what is beautiful. ” (Plato 1984). After he died the Academy continued until AD 529, when it was closed due to its pagan teachings. Neo-Platonism, founded by the 3rd-century philosopher Plotinus, was an important development of Platonism. It was a philosophical system which was as a combination of Platonic, Pythagorean, and Aristotelian elements. Originally it was opposed to Christianity but later on it integrated it. It dominated European thought until the 13th century and re-emerged during the Renaissance.

The most important Renaissance Neo-Platonist was “Marsilio Ficino” who developed significant ideas from Plato and Neo-Platonism. Ficino founded of the Academy in Firenze and was responsible for the circulation of Neo-Platonic ideas. Ficino is credited with translating all of Platos’ dialogues into Latin and produced a great work called Platonic Theology, in which he outlines Neo-Platonism. His philosophy is based on the doctrine that the human soul is the center of the cosmos. It is the only thing that sits between the world of ideas and the world is the soul.

Neo-Platonism was revived in the 17th century by the Cambridge Platonists such as Cudworth and Smith. The school stressed the importance of reason, maintaining that faith and reason are not that different. Rene Descartes an 18th century philosopher and Neo-Platonist developed a method to achieve truths. If something is not recognized by the intellect or reason can be classified as knowledge. According to Descartes. These truths are gained “without any sensory experience” (Descartes). He argued that as a result of his method, reason alone determined knowledge and that this could be done independently of the senses.

“Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I exist” (Descartes) Plato developed an absolutist ethical theory which is that there is a greater good toward which to aspire. He developed this theory to respond to the skepticism and the beliefs of the Sophists who Plato felt did not preach wisdom, but rather their opinions. Plato tried to protect the part of reasoning in human life though he had resistance from the ancient Greek preachers know as the Sophists. They came from different cities and proclaimed that they were able to impart knowledge to young men how to live prosperous lives.

Even though the Sophists did not belong to a school and did not have a common creed, some opinions were typical of them as a group and were absolutely conflicting to the views of Plato. The Sophists were great communicators and skilled public speakers. Plato felt that the Sophists were more likely to appeal to emotions rather than to reason. According to Plato philosophers influence people’s souls not their bodies and Plato agreed with Socrates in thinking that the nurturing of the soul is more vital than the nurturing of the body.

Furthermore, he also believed that true leaders need to have wisdom, and knowledge. Plato’s influence has been monumental as one philosopher said the history of philosophy is simply “a series of footnotes to Plato. ” (Whitehead) Plato’s has been criticized down through the centuries for his philosophy of the forms. His ideas of the just life and an ideal state are complex. Plato tended to specifically ignores much of human nature. Plato did not think in the realm of the physical world, he was always looking to a different one where things exist only if he can prove there existence.

References Kraut, R. (2009, Sept) Plato Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/plato; Plato. (1984) Great dialogues of Plato New York: Mentor Books trans. by Benjamin Jowett Blackburn, S. (1945) The republic of Plato. (45 ed. ). London: Oxford University Press, USA. trans. By Desmond Lee Descartes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/descartes-works; Alfred North Whitehead. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/whitehead/

Research Paper on Plato Essay

Developing Socratic Wisdom Essay

Developing Socratic Wisdom Essay.

Socrates was an ancient Greek Athenian philosopher known mainly through the accounts and writings of his students, namely Plato and Aristotle. The wisdom of Socrates is depicted numerous times in the dialogues written by Plato. All the Socratic dialogues – Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito – illustrated Socrates’ form of inquiry and discussion between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to encourage critical thinking and to clarify ideas.

It is an examination method, involving two oppositional topics in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another.

It may lead to one participant contradicting himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer’s point of view. In the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates demonstrated his being self-reflective and unyielding inquisition until he finds satisfaction on his opponents’ answers. He asked a series of questions about the meaning of being pious and impious, of love and be loved, and the state of becoming, and implication of action and passion.

He praised Melitus, his accuser, for showing a good deal of character, for being a very wise and caring person, and starting his career the way every responsible citizen should – by taking care of the young and protecting them from their destroyers. If he will succeed, Melitus will be doing the same to the elderly and will make him a great benefactor of his country. For him to become such an extraordinary man, he surely made great advances to seek knowledge and wisdom. “ For a man is wise when he begins to impart his wisdom to others,” until then people become angry and jealous.

Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge is recognition of one’s ignorance – knowing you know nothing. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates and his friend, Chaerephon, went to Delphi and asked the Phythian Prophetess whether “anyone is wiser than Socrates,” of which the Oracle replied “there was no man wiser. ” Socrates believed that he lacks knowledge and wisdom, and that there are other people in Athens who are wiser and knowledgeable than him. To prove the Oracle wrong, he went out to examine the people he thought are wiser and knowledgeable than him – the politicians, poets, and the artisans.

Socrates investigations revealed that those who claimed to have knowledge really knew nothing or knew less than what they claimed; that some inferior men were really wiser and better, for example the herdsman who accused the father of Euthypro. Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge is recognition of one’s ignorance – knowing you know nothing. In Crito, Socrates pointed out that opinions of many cannot make a man wise or foolish, as whatever they do is the result of chance. Reasons must guide opinions. For Socrates, opinions of good men are the only one worth considering until a better principle is found.

In conclusion, developing Socratic wisdom starts with recognizing we know nothing about a certain matter, acknowledging that there man is no wiser than God. If we know nothing, we need to ask and investigate, examine, not focusing on proving your point, but disproving the other’s point with a series of questions until no more questions left to be ask. Start with simple questions, and not to move on until you are satisfied with the result. Be observant and seek for advancement in knowledge while you are young. Be of good virtue, pious and just and obey the laws. Finally, share your knowledge and wisdom for the betterment of other people.

Developing Socratic Wisdom Essay

Socrates Essay

Socrates Essay.

The precise facts about how and why the great Greek philosopher Socrates was sentenced and executed remains one of the biggest puzzles in history, even to this day. Socrates lived and philosophized in Athens, which is said to be the ancient model for a democracy. Yet, it seems like the Athenians sentenced to death a respected member of their society for speaking his mind and standing by his principles. Now how democratic is that? What makes the situation more riddling is that the only two journals for the events surrounding the death of Socrates are written by Plato and Xenophon, who are his followers.

Some historians argue the picture they presented in their works is intended to imply Socrates was unfairly brought to trial and executed. However, by examining closely what arguments Socrates presented to defend himself in his Apology and the reasons he had for not escaping prison presented in Crito, it becomes more likely than not that Socrates intended to get just the judgment he got.

He was aware that the Athenians wanted to be free from his philosophizing, but was not willing to go on exile and stop being who he is, and doing what defines him.

That is why Socrates chose death. Throughout his trial Socrates passes through various points he has to make once again in front of the Athenian society, but the whole time what he aims is to defend his belief in the power of philosophizing and his idea of what is democratic and right. In no way would he admit his teaching was wrong. But he was aware that philosophizing is what put him on trail and by continuing to do it, he would most probably not convince the jury of his innocence.

After he is pronounced guilty and a sentence is being discussed, he even starts being somewhat arrogant to the jurors, maybe to find out how they will react as the elite of a democratic society. At this point Socrates is deliberately saying things that will get him sentenced to death, but stays true to his own principles. Just as I. F. Stone suggested in his book The Trial of Socrates: “the trial of Socrates, the most interesting suicide the world has ever seen, produced the first martyr for free speech. Just as Jesus needed the cross to fulfill his mission, Socrates needed the hemlock with venom to fulfill his.

The Apology of Socrates represents a trial, and Socrates is supposed to be building a defense argument in his own favor. But what he does from the very beginning does not sound much apologetic. One important charge against him is impiety. The jury says Socrates does not believe in the traditional Greek gods and that is a crime. What the philosopher does is to refer to “daimonia”, which he describes as “god of some sort” (27d, Apology). Therefore, he is not impious if he believes in some godly concept. However, his claim is not even close to a defense against what he was accused of.

As we know even form modern law a defense has to be adequate to the exact accusation, which in this case is that Socrates does not believe in particular gods. By mentioning “daimonia” he basically admits he does not obey the commonly accepted gods, therefore, admits the accusation. Another part of the “lawsuit” worth mentioning is the accusation that Socrates is “corrupting the youth”. Here, again the philosopher does not make any valid defense and does not provide any evidence for the opposite. He merely asks Meletus who makes the youth good, which in a way puts the blame on the whole Athenian society.

Meletus responds that who makes the youth good is everyone but Socrates, and at this point Socrates goes further, by implying he is actually the only one who really understands the youth and can make them good. Such a statement must have sounded rather challenging for the jurors given the situation, and certainly not one that will persuade them Socrates was “innocent”. The defendant tries to discharge the accusations in his own fashion, but let us highlight one more time that he understands philosophizing will not do the job, as it is what the polis leaders found disturbing in the first place.

Trying to be humble and denying his believes would probably be the right strategy, but Socrates just stays true to his principles. Even when saying we is a humble man who knows nothing, it is obvious he does not mean it, he just puts a meaning behind it. In the progress of the trial Socrates also claims that apart from being not guilty, he should be actually viewed as a hero. He mentions his service in the battles against Sparta, and again going one step further he compares himself to the great hero of the Trojan war – Achilles.

The analogy made here is that Socrates like Achilles does not keep into account “the matters of living and dying” (28b, Apology). Just like Achilles even fear of death will not make him stop exercising his way of thinking and philosophizing the way he always did. This basically means that the only way to make Socrates stop doing what he was accused of is by sending him to death. He sees his manner of living as a duty. Socrates never got paid for his work as a teacher, and therefore has never been restrained by the need of having to satisfy anyone but his feeling of self-content.

So what he does here is, saying that even though he loves Athens, it will never make him change who he is and what he is destined to always do. Socrates makes a point about how his way of thinking is the right one and should be adopted by this democratic society, but is aware this is unlikely to happen now and will most certainly not get him cleared of accusations. Another brave claim made by Socrates is that he actually is the greatest good that happened to the city. He says that “either obey Anytus or not, and either let me go or not, since I would not do otherwise, not even if I were going to die many times” (30c, Apology).

This is a way of testing whether Athens can comprehend his ways of teaching and is worthy of having Socrates and his philosophy. However, here he is rather too arrogant for the jurors by providing only two options – either kill me or let me go. His statements about him being send by the gods and how by killing him the citizens will suffer themselves is outrageous. It will clearly not help discharge the accusations, but is simply aimed at making a point. There is no way a person like Socrates, from the little that we know about him, would not understand how his words will affect people and what reactions he will get.

However, he chooses to get sacrificed for his cause. When later voted guilty but by a small difference, he suggests and alternative to a death sentence, that he should be given free meals in the Prytaneum, which was an honor intended for the city elite and the Olympic champions. Suggesting a real punishment as a second sentence option will be like admitting he was wrong. Most people in this situation will live with that just to get a smaller punishment, but Socrates would clearly not in the world do anything to even suggest he is guilty of something before the people of Athens.

He knows the people who voted him guilty will not change their mind and give him free meals, but he still chooses death. After the death sentence was announced Socrates has his final words before the Athenian society saying that by killing him they failed the test that he has conducted for them. Maybe here he draws the conclusion that people are just not ready for his way of thinking and that philosophizing is not a part of their democracy. He in a way condemns them by saying they will be held responsible for “having killed Socrates, a wise man” (38c).

He admits that he lost the trial only because he did not say what “would have been most pleased to hear”, suggesting that he could if he wanted to, but that would make him unworthy of what he has been standing for all these years. “I much prefer to die having made my defense speech in this way than to live in that way,” (38e) says Socrates referring to exile and having to live as a stranger from one city to another and be unaccepted for who he is. Possibly, his decision has something to do with the fact that Socrates was aged 70 at the time of the trial.

There is now no way for him to develop much further and to try and establish himself, all he has left now is simply standing his ground until the end. With the Apology of Socrates the theory about Socrates not being able to defend himself falls, as there is an enormous discrepancy that the person who could make unjust speech sound just could have not defended himself properly if he wanted to. The point is he did not want to and did not need to do it. Plato’s work Crito naturally transitions us to the moment when Socrates is n his cell and is waiting to die.

At this point Crito comes and tells Socrates he is going to do anything to help him escape and starts giving him reasons to go somewhere before the time for execution has come. Socrates, on the other hand, gives various reasons why he simply can not and does not want to do that, because running is not what he originally intended. But in terms of our discussion a particular point Socrates makes is about Athenian Law. He conducts an imaginary conversation of law and how it would react if Socrates escapes.

According to the philosopher law is what gives one the opportunity to engage in truth-seeking and thinking. Therefore it gives the reasonable person the kind of education he needs to actually be a thinker and a Philosopher like Socrates. In this sense the Laws are part of what made Socrates who he is by giving him the right basis. Since the dialogue is going on in his head this clearly is Socrates’ own opinion. He feels like he owes a big part of who he is to being in Athens his whole life and developing in this exact society, so leaving it now will not do any good.

What happens in Crito is that Socrates gets a second chance to rethink the decision he made to basically sentence himself to death, but it is clear that he would do the same thing and talk in the same way if he had the chance to do it one more time. Socrates, despite antagonizing Athens in his trial stand by its polis by saying: “that a state can exist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law are no force, and are disregarded and undermined by private individuals. ”(Delue) In a twisted way Socrates does not fail Athens even in his end.

So, its is clear by just looking at these two texts that Socrates started off his trial by not caring at all what the outcome for him might be. He simply aimed to defend his way of teaching and philosophical ideas. Socrates said what he felt like he should say without considering his own destiny. When he later saw what the situation with the accuser and the jurors is, Socrates decided the best option is a death sentence, as it was the only one that would keep his dignity and principles. Socrates’ defense speech was a failure, but a deliberate failure. Plato’s published Apology of Socrates turns that failure into enduring success”(23, Four Texts on Socrates). This heroic end is just what Socrates seeks, and with it he remained in history. Today’s society does charge the Athenians with killing a “wise man” just as he predicted. His personality still interests us in various ways, which proves that the ancient Greeks were indeed not ready to understand what Socrates had to say.

You may also be interested in the following: socrates apology analysis

Socrates Essay