Argument For Disobedience In Crito And Apology By Plato

1714 Words7 Pages
There is a seemingly fundamental contradiction that arises in the two dialogues by Socrates; Crito and Apology by Plato. In the Apology we get to meet the defiant Socrates who declares during his trial that he would not stop practicing philosophy in contradiction to the jury’s order if he was to be acquitted on condition never to practice philosophy ever again. Socrates claimed that he would choose to obey the gods as long as he was alive instead of obeying men. Here Socrates can be seen to present a defiant argument for disobedience while in the face of injustice. On the other hand, when presented with an opportunity to escape from prison just when he has an upcoming execution, Socrates gives an argument that such acts are unjust because they only serve to dishonor the city’s laws. Plato brings out Socrates as speaking hypothetically for the voice of the law. Socrates said that one’s country is supposed to be honored more than parents and all the ancestors. He said that the country should be moiré revered and taken to be more sacred and that it is more honorable among the gods and among sensible men. His view is that the country must be worshiped, it must be yielded to and its anger should be placated than that of a father. Socrates says that we should endure what the country orders us to endure in silence irrespective of whether leads to…show more content…
We must assume that Socrates has a consistent character within the two dialogues. We must also assume that his character is also trustworthy in supporting philosophical arguments. It can be easy to evaluate the main inconsistencies within the two dialogues by accepting the assumptions above. By following these assumptions it is easy to examine the main philosophy in the Apology relating to the one within Crito with a logical

More about Argument For Disobedience In Crito And Apology By Plato

Open Document