Breaking this agreement would leave his conscience guilty and make his life not worthwhile. He also believes that if he were to leave it would tarnish his reputation of him, his children, who he wanted to raise in Athens, would also have to bear his reputation which would be ruined if he left. Socrates would rather die knowing that he did not break his agreement with Athens and ruin his reputation and have a clean conscience than flee to another city and live out the rest of his life with the guilt. Socrates also says that if he were to escape it would be hurting the city by undermining the judicial system and giving it no credibility to convict other criminals who would escape just as he did and leaving it susceptible to a state of no order and
Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom that the jury demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching according to Crito. However, Socrates denies the plan of escape. The three arguments to be acknowledged are as follows: the selfish, the practicality, and the moral. Socrates reason not to escape, Socrates explanation of the good life, and an objection for breaking the laws that would put no harm to his fellow citizens is
The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity. The Apology is Socrates defending not only himself, but also philosophy as an area of study that could be useful to the city of Athens. Socrates is trying to defend himself and his study and he tries to distance himself from the sophists in that they charge for money.
The first concept that I noticed shared by Russell and Socrates was the concept that one had to remove themselves before serious philosophical contemplation could take place. In Russell 's case, he refers to the "Self" and the "Not-Self". With Socrates, as seen in the Apology, confronting his accuser about the corruption of youth, his accuser is silent because he had not given the matter any thought. Socrates awareness of his own ignorance frees him from what Russell would refer to as "Self". I mention this because it serves as a common theme even as both philosophers differ in their messages.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
Since the day of the judgment between Athens and Socrates in 399 year B.C. many historians, philosophers, and students wonder to know whether Socrates was Guilty. Philosopher was accused in corrupting the youth, not believing in the recognized gods and introducing new divinities and in the rejection of civic life in democratic society. It is very difficult to answer on this question, may be even impossible. In my opinion, there are three types of people: 1.
Socrates was a greek philosopher who found himself in trouble with his fellow citizens and court for standing his grounds on his new found beliefs from his studies about philosophical virtue, justice, and truth. In “Apology” written by Plato, Socrates defended himself in trial, not with the goal of escaping the death sentence, but with the goal of doing the right thing and standing for his beliefs. With this mindset, Socrates had no intention of kissing up to the Athenians to save his life. Many will argue that Socrates’ speech was not very effective because he did not fight for his life, he just accepted the death sentence that he was punished with. In his speech he said, “But now it’s time to leave, time for me to die and for you to live.”
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
Was Socrates right to say he would stay in Athens no matter the consequences, or should he have fled Athens to avoid death? Socrates was right to say he would stay in Athens no matter what because first, he believed he was sent to Athens or “placed in Athens” for a specific reason and he also believed that even though the Athenians found him as a threat and annoying, he believed that it helped them. Socrates was right to say he would stay in Athens no matter what the consequences were because he believed that he was placed or in Athens for a reason. This quote from “The Apology” is an example to prove that he was placed in Athens for a reason. “Because if I tell you that doing that would mean disobeying the god, and so I can’t keep quiet,
Socrates believes that justice benefits the just, but also benefits the city (other people) too. He is faced with a seemingly simple choice, escape Athens or remain in prison and be sentenced to death. Socrates’ central argument against escaping his circumstances is twofold. First, Socrates argues that “one must never do wrong.” (49b)
What are the two sets of accusations made against Socrates at his trial? How does Socrates respond to each of the charges? Do you think Socrates was guilty or not guilty? Why?
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.
Leading up to and throughout the trial, Socrates is provided with numerous opportunities to avoid conviction and the death sentence he receives. However, since Socrates had too much hu-bris and was a firm believer in the “death before dishonor” mantra, he refused to attempt to sway the jury through argumentum ad passiones, which was customary. Instead, Socrates opted to uti-lize valid arguments, that were rooted in logic as a means of convincing the jury of his innocence. Nevertheless, had Socrates ceased practicing philosophy publicly prior to the trial, appealed to the jury’s emotions during trial, or suggested a tougher punishment to the jury, he would have successfully avoided his fated conviction and eventual death sentence. The simplest method Socrates could have used to prevent the conviction he received would be to cease practicing philosophy in public, similar to the Pre-Socratics who preceded him
In the end, Socrates declares that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one and he is willing to accept the punishment the court deems fit. He refuses to compromise his beliefs and values, no matter the
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).
