Comparison Between Crito and Apology

Comparison between Crito and Apology

For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Ў§Socrates the loyal Athenian citizenЎЁ and Ў§Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,ЎЁ will help to position PlatoЎ¦s Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand PlatoЎ¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.

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 courtЎ¦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 MeletusЎ¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didnЎ¦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. This is why Socrates remains true to his way of life even though he is on trial for his life, and will probably be sentenced to death. He also says we know nothing of death, and so it is irrational to fear it. Therefore his service to the god is more important than having the support of Athenians, or money, or a nicer lifestyle. He never meant to impose his thoughts on anyone, but instead to simply enjoy the company of interesting people and the opportunity to learn from othersЎ¦ thoughts and conversation. When Socrates is informed of the final verdict he again keeps his composure and closes his defense speech by saying that he would much rather have defended himself in the way that he did, than by begging and pleading for the sympathy and mercy of the jurors. Finally, Socrates tells the jury that there is hope in death and that he will enter into it with no fear. His final request is for the jurymen to make sure that his sons grow up in the right way.

In the article Crito, this dialogue takes a place in Socrates' prison cell, where he awaits execution. At this time, Socrates has many followers who hope he will agree to escape. When Crito, a friend of the philosopher, comes to advocate this position, Socrates logically refutes his argument. Socrates seems quite willing to await his imminent execution, and so Crito presents as many arguments as he can to persuade Socrates to escape. However, Socrates makes the point that it is always better to do right than wrong, no matter what the situation. It then follows that although the jurors who condemned Socrates have wronged him, it would still be wrong to violate the laws by escaping. He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly