Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? - View Single Post

12-12-2004, 09:26 PM

Crito

Plato wrote “Crito” as a dialogue that takes place between Crito and Socrates a few days before Socrates’ death. The conversation between Crito and Socrates concerns a possible escape from prison on Socrates’ part. Crito initially offers the services of the escape, and supplies several reasons and incentives for why Socrates should seek his freedom. To this, Socrates lays out an argument based on Socratic moral theory that forbids him to escape from prison. At the end of the dialogue, both Crito and Socrates agree that to escape is not proper on Socrates’ part, and Socrates spends his remaining days in prison. For this essay, I will be referring to “Socrates and the State,” by Richard Kraut, henceforth “Kraut.” I will use Kraut as a tool to best examine “Crito’s” main argument as well as any sub-arguments that may lie within.
“Crito” opens with bad news for Socrates; the the sacred ship of Athens is to arrive in one day. Socrates is to be executed one day after the ships arrival. When informed of the ships arrival, Socrates tells Crito of his belief that the ship will actually come an extra day later, as this was told to him in a dream. Crito wastes no time in telling Socrates of the true nature of his visit, he informs Socrates of his ability to have him broken out of prison, for a certain price that Crito is willing to pay. In 44c of the passage, Crito expresses his wish to not be viewed by the majority as one who values money over the life of a good friend. Crito also expresses a concern for the life of Socrates’ children in 45c, claiming that by not escaping from prison, Socrates is “betraying [his] sons.” Socrates sees these arguments and agrees to evaluate the situation. In light of these concerns, Socrates lays out a small argument as a precursor to the main argument of the passage. From 47a to 48d, Socrates manages to convince Crito that the opinions of the majority should not be the consideration when making a decision. Crito first agrees that a sound statement “must not value all the opinions of men, but some and not others.” The next logical step is therefore that one should value the good opinions and not the bad ones, and that the good opinions are those of the informed men, such as an athlete should follow the opinions of a doctor rather than the masses; Crito also agrees to these statements. If an athlete does not obey his doctor, his body will be hurt; this too, argues Socrates, is the case with unjust actions. Crito agrees that there is a part of the human being that is concerned with justice that is more valuable than the physical body itself, and that this part can be corrupted should it not obey the opinions of an informed and knowledgeable person. The conclusion of this precursor argument is that Socrates should fully evaluate whether it is just or unjust for him to escape from prison rather than to be concerned with the opinions of the masses, no matter what their power may be. With the decision to evaluate his situation as to whether it is just or unjust to escape from prison, Socrates continues on to offer the main argument of “Crito.”
The main argument, according to Kraut, can be broken up into 6 premises:
1) “One must never treat any city or person unjustly. (49b8)
2) By escaping, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part. (50a8-b5)
3) Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates. (50d1-51c1)
4) If some person or city X is responsible for the birth or education of Y, then Y treats X unjustly if Y uses violence against X. (51c2-3)
5) Whoever destroys a city, for his part, uses violence against that city. (supplied)
6) If Socrates escapes, he will be treating Athens unjustly.” (Kraut 50)
Socrates uses premise 1 as the basis for the ensuing argument. If Crito were not to agree that one must never act unjustly, no further argumentation would be fruitful for Socrates. This assumption comes from Socratic morals, and since there is no argumentation for it in “Crito,” it can be assumed that Crito and Socrates have discussed the manner in some previous conversations. Adding the term “city” into this premise was a contribution by Kraut to further enhance the idea that some inanimate objects, such as cities, can also be treated unjustly. Socrates makes a firm emphasis of this when he later personifies the Laws by giving them their own voice and argumentation. Without this personification, it would be very difficult to perceive any wrongdoing or injustice to Athens, unless some citizen of Athens was actually harmed.
I believe that Kraut left out a key argument, or perhaps felt that it was inherent in the statement “By escaping, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part.” It is not clear how Socrates would be destroying Athens, without first examining all of Socrates’ reasoning for such an assumption. The premises that were left out by Kraut would be “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill upon it. Otherwise one is attempting to destroy the agreement, and in turn harming the other party, for his part,” and “To escape from prison, Socrates would be cheating upon an agreement he had justly made.” To examine why Socrates would be “destroying Athens,” we must look first at this agreement between Socrates and the Laws. The Laws tell Socrates in 52b-c of a justly made agreement between Socrates and Athens. They discuss his ability to leave the city should the conditions not be pleasing to him. They argue that Socrates “would have not dwelt here most consistently of all the Athenians if the city had not been exceedingly pleasing to [him]. [Socrates has] never left the city, even to see a festival, nor for any other reason people do; [he has] no desire to know another city or other laws; we and our city satisfied [him].” Because of this acceptance of the city of Athens, argue the Laws, Socrates has agreed to be bound by the laws of Athens. “So decisively did you choose us and agree to be a citizen under us,” claim the Laws, showing that Socrates was a willful participant in this agreement, one which was justly made. There is further proof of this acceptance in 52c where Socrates has chosen to have his children in the city of Athens. To oppose the decisions of Athens, claim the Laws, is to have them destroyed on Socrates’ part, as it is to violate an inherent agreement that Socrates was to obey the decisions of the city. Even though these decisions may not have been just in nature, argues Socrates, the agreement to follow these decisions was justly made, and therefore they must be followed. For Socrates to disobey the court’s orders of imprisonment and execution, Socrates will be violating his agreement to obey the commands of Athens because to obey the commands was part of an agreement Socrates made with the city, and this violation represents an effort to destroy the laws as they regard to Socrates. This is especially apparent when the Laws ask if “it is possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals?” With this in mind, it is easier to see how Kraut comes to the conclusion that by escaping, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part.
Premise 3, “Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates,” (50d1-51c1) comes directly from the text and requires very little argumentation for or against. Socrates was born in Athens, lived in Athens, and was educated in Athens. What is interesting about this premise, however, is the connection that it draws between parents and cities. It is the opinion of Kraut, that to Socrates, Athens was much more than merely a place to live. From reading “Crito,” I agree wholly with this opinion. The Laws mention Athens in such ways that draw a tie between being raised in a city and being raised by parents. They point out that Socrates owes his very existence to Athens and was nurtured and educated by Athens in a manner similar to a parent and child. The Laws further elaborate upon this relationship in 51a-b by saying that “your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father and all your ancestors, that it is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate its anger more than your fathers.” This quote is viewed by some as representing Socrates as having a particularly totalitarian view of government. The quote can easily lead us to believe that Socrates placed a higher value on a city than merely a place where you live and choose to accept the local government; rather the relationship between a citizen and a city is closer to that of a slave and a slave owner. Socrates even directly uses this image when he compares one who escapes prison to “the meanest type of slave [who tries] to run away, contrary to [his] undertakings and [his] agreement to live as a citizen under us.” (52d)
Premise 4, “If some person or city X is responsible for the birth or education of Y, then Y treats X unjustly if Y uses violence against X,” (51c2-3) is where the parent-city connection becomes important. This assumption, one widely held in ancient Greece, asserts that although violence is not always forbidden, violence against one’s parents is strictly forbidden. While this belief was not commonly held about cities, as cities are inanimate objects, Kraut has adjusted his premise to include cities, once again following Socrates’ lead by treating the Laws of Athens as rational and animate objects. The Laws clearly draw similarities between parents and cities in 51e, “We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and because, in spite of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better.” This passage carries many implications to the argument as a whole. Not only does it combine both Premise 4 and my own assertion of an inherent agreement, but it also asserts a notion that perhaps absolute submission to the Laws of a city without argument is not the only just action, rather an alternative exists. While it’s unclear how the phrase “try to persuade us to do better,” fits into the argument at hand, being whether or not Socrates is to escape, it does provide a counterpoint to any reading of “Crito” that proposes Socrates’ philosophy is one of absolute rule and absolute submission. The notion that a citizen can be expected to attempt to persuade a city of its injustices opens up a whole line of questioning as to whether Socrates believed that this persuasion could also accompany disobeying, and therefore disobeying the laws would not always be unjust. While Kraut believes that Socrates may have proposed leeway for persuasion, I find this belief doubtful considering the end result of Socrates’ death with very little or no protest. Instead I believe that Socrates held a very totalitarian view on government, especially considering that he was willing to give up his life to hold this view.
Premise 5 of Kraut’s layout of Socrates’ argument, “Whoever destroys a city, for his part, uses violence against that city,” is not specifically mentioned in “Crito,” rather it can be implied logically as it is necessary to imply the conclusion of the argument. It is fairly intuitive, and therefore reasonable for Socrates’ to have used it as an implied premise, for this reason it has been added to the argument. With this assumption, and the aforementioned supplied premises, we are ready to follow them logically to see how Socrates arrived at his final conclusion.
Using Premises 2, 3, 4, and 5, we see the following logical train of sequences:
If Socrates escapes, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part, and if Socrates destroys Athens for his part, Socrates uses violence against Athens. Therefore if Socrates escapes, Socrates uses violence against Athens. (7)
Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates and if Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates, then Socrates treats Athens unjustly if Socrates uses violence against Athens. Therefore if Socrates uses violence against Athens, then Socrates treats Athens unjustly. (8)
Using the newly created premises (7) and (8) drawn from logical conclusions, we can conclude Premise 6, “If Socrates escapes, Socrates treats Athens unjustly.” With this premise now proven, and also taking into the account of the very first premise to be agreed upon by Crito and Socrates, “One must never treat any city or person unjustly,” we are forced to come to no conclusion other than “Socrates must not escape.” This would be a fine ending of the Crito, should the whole passage be written logically, but strangely enough, even after Socrates has presented enough material to complete a good argument against escaping from prison, he continues for quite a while, personifying the Laws, giving even further reasons for why escape should not be attempted. It is only after this emotional addition to “Crito” that Socrates considers the matter finished, and Crito agrees.
The final arguments provided by the Laws do not follow that of Socrates’ original wisdom to appeal to one who has knowledge; rather they appear to Crito’s original concerns, those of the masses. If Socrates were to leave, he would have nowhere to go. Should Socrates go to Thebes or Megara, which Socrates believes to possess good governments, he will “arrive as an enemy to their government; all who care for their city will look upon [Socrates] with suspicion, as a destroyer of the laws.” (53a-b) The Laws further bring up the issues which Crito had addressed at the beginning of the passage. First, the Laws tell Socrates that his image could be tarnished by escaping prison, that if he were to ever annoy someone, “many disgraceful things will be said about [him].” (53e) The Laws also bring up Socrates’ children, informing Socrates that should Socrates stay in prison his friends will look after them, but should he escape and eventually find eternity in the underworld, his friends may not look after Socrates’ children. These arguments should be of no concern to Socrates, as he has already decided to do what he decides is just, despite what popular opinion may be. Perhaps this emotional rambling is merely for Crito’s sake, to make Crito firmly believe and agree with Socrates’ decision to remain in prison until his eventual execution. Whether or not it is the case, I believe the last part of “Crito” regarding these issues brought up by the Laws to be unnecessary for Socrates’ argument.

Work Cited
Kraut, Richard. Socrates and the State. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
UP, 1984.

12-12-2004, 09:26 PM	#5 (permalink)
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a	Crito Plato wrote “Crito” as a dialogue that takes place between Crito and Socrates a few days before Socrates’ death. The conversation between Crito and Socrates concerns a possible escape from prison on Socrates’ part. Crito initially offers the services of the escape, and supplies several reasons and incentives for why Socrates should seek his freedom. To this, Socrates lays out an argument based on Socratic moral theory that forbids him to escape from prison. At the end of the dialogue, both Crito and Socrates agree that to escape is not proper on Socrates’ part, and Socrates spends his remaining days in prison. For this essay, I will be referring to “Socrates and the State,” by Richard Kraut, henceforth “Kraut.” I will use Kraut as a tool to best examine “Crito’s” main argument as well as any sub-arguments that may lie within. “Crito” opens with bad news for Socrates; the the sacred ship of Athens is to arrive in one day. Socrates is to be executed one day after the ships arrival. When informed of the ships arrival, Socrates tells Crito of his belief that the ship will actually come an extra day later, as this was told to him in a dream. Crito wastes no time in telling Socrates of the true nature of his visit, he informs Socrates of his ability to have him broken out of prison, for a certain price that Crito is willing to pay. In 44c of the passage, Crito expresses his wish to not be viewed by the majority as one who values money over the life of a good friend. Crito also expresses a concern for the life of Socrates’ children in 45c, claiming that by not escaping from prison, Socrates is “betraying [his] sons.” Socrates sees these arguments and agrees to evaluate the situation. In light of these concerns, Socrates lays out a small argument as a precursor to the main argument of the passage. From 47a to 48d, Socrates manages to convince Crito that the opinions of the majority should not be the consideration when making a decision. Crito first agrees that a sound statement “must not value all the opinions of men, but some and not others.” The next logical step is therefore that one should value the good opinions and not the bad ones, and that the good opinions are those of the informed men, such as an athlete should follow the opinions of a doctor rather than the masses; Crito also agrees to these statements. If an athlete does not obey his doctor, his body will be hurt; this too, argues Socrates, is the case with unjust actions. Crito agrees that there is a part of the human being that is concerned with justice that is more valuable than the physical body itself, and that this part can be corrupted should it not obey the opinions of an informed and knowledgeable person. The conclusion of this precursor argument is that Socrates should fully evaluate whether it is just or unjust for him to escape from prison rather than to be concerned with the opinions of the masses, no matter what their power may be. With the decision to evaluate his situation as to whether it is just or unjust to escape from prison, Socrates continues on to offer the main argument of “Crito.” The main argument, according to Kraut, can be broken up into 6 premises: 1) “One must never treat any city or person unjustly. (49b8) 2) By escaping, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part. (50a8-b5) 3) Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates. (50d1-51c1) 4) If some person or city X is responsible for the birth or education of Y, then Y treats X unjustly if Y uses violence against X. (51c2-3) 5) Whoever destroys a city, for his part, uses violence against that city. (supplied) 6) If Socrates escapes, he will be treating Athens unjustly.” (Kraut 50) Socrates uses premise 1 as the basis for the ensuing argument. If Crito were not to agree that one must never act unjustly, no further argumentation would be fruitful for Socrates. This assumption comes from Socratic morals, and since there is no argumentation for it in “Crito,” it can be assumed that Crito and Socrates have discussed the manner in some previous conversations. Adding the term “city” into this premise was a contribution by Kraut to further enhance the idea that some inanimate objects, such as cities, can also be treated unjustly. Socrates makes a firm emphasis of this when he later personifies the Laws by giving them their own voice and argumentation. Without this personification, it would be very difficult to perceive any wrongdoing or injustice to Athens, unless some citizen of Athens was actually harmed. I believe that Kraut left out a key argument, or perhaps felt that it was inherent in the statement “By escaping, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part.” It is not clear how Socrates would be destroying Athens, without first examining all of Socrates’ reasoning for such an assumption. The premises that were left out by Kraut would be “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill upon it. Otherwise one is attempting to destroy the agreement, and in turn harming the other party, for his part,” and “To escape from prison, Socrates would be cheating upon an agreement he had justly made.” To examine why Socrates would be “destroying Athens,” we must look first at this agreement between Socrates and the Laws. The Laws tell Socrates in 52b-c of a justly made agreement between Socrates and Athens. They discuss his ability to leave the city should the conditions not be pleasing to him. They argue that Socrates “would have not dwelt here most consistently of all the Athenians if the city had not been exceedingly pleasing to [him]. [Socrates has] never left the city, even to see a festival, nor for any other reason people do; [he has] no desire to know another city or other laws; we and our city satisfied [him].” Because of this acceptance of the city of Athens, argue the Laws, Socrates has agreed to be bound by the laws of Athens. “So decisively did you choose us and agree to be a citizen under us,” claim the Laws, showing that Socrates was a willful participant in this agreement, one which was justly made. There is further proof of this acceptance in 52c where Socrates has chosen to have his children in the city of Athens. To oppose the decisions of Athens, claim the Laws, is to have them destroyed on Socrates’ part, as it is to violate an inherent agreement that Socrates was to obey the decisions of the city. Even though these decisions may not have been just in nature, argues Socrates, the agreement to follow these decisions was justly made, and therefore they must be followed. For Socrates to disobey the court’s orders of imprisonment and execution, Socrates will be violating his agreement to obey the commands of Athens because to obey the commands was part of an agreement Socrates made with the city, and this violation represents an effort to destroy the laws as they regard to Socrates. This is especially apparent when the Laws ask if “it is possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals?” With this in mind, it is easier to see how Kraut comes to the conclusion that by escaping, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part. Premise 3, “Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates,” (50d1-51c1) comes directly from the text and requires very little argumentation for or against. Socrates was born in Athens, lived in Athens, and was educated in Athens. What is interesting about this premise, however, is the connection that it draws between parents and cities. It is the opinion of Kraut, that to Socrates, Athens was much more than merely a place to live. From reading “Crito,” I agree wholly with this opinion. The Laws mention Athens in such ways that draw a tie between being raised in a city and being raised by parents. They point out that Socrates owes his very existence to Athens and was nurtured and educated by Athens in a manner similar to a parent and child. The Laws further elaborate upon this relationship in 51a-b by saying that “your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father and all your ancestors, that it is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate its anger more than your fathers.” This quote is viewed by some as representing Socrates as having a particularly totalitarian view of government. The quote can easily lead us to believe that Socrates placed a higher value on a city than merely a place where you live and choose to accept the local government; rather the relationship between a citizen and a city is closer to that of a slave and a slave owner. Socrates even directly uses this image when he compares one who escapes prison to “the meanest type of slave [who tries] to run away, contrary to [his] undertakings and [his] agreement to live as a citizen under us.” (52d) Premise 4, “If some person or city X is responsible for the birth or education of Y, then Y treats X unjustly if Y uses violence against X,” (51c2-3) is where the parent-city connection becomes important. This assumption, one widely held in ancient Greece, asserts that although violence is not always forbidden, violence against one’s parents is strictly forbidden. While this belief was not commonly held about cities, as cities are inanimate objects, Kraut has adjusted his premise to include cities, once again following Socrates’ lead by treating the Laws of Athens as rational and animate objects. The Laws clearly draw similarities between parents and cities in 51e, “We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and because, in spite of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better.” This passage carries many implications to the argument as a whole. Not only does it combine both Premise 4 and my own assertion of an inherent agreement, but it also asserts a notion that perhaps absolute submission to the Laws of a city without argument is not the only just action, rather an alternative exists. While it’s unclear how the phrase “try to persuade us to do better,” fits into the argument at hand, being whether or not Socrates is to escape, it does provide a counterpoint to any reading of “Crito” that proposes Socrates’ philosophy is one of absolute rule and absolute submission. The notion that a citizen can be expected to attempt to persuade a city of its injustices opens up a whole line of questioning as to whether Socrates believed that this persuasion could also accompany disobeying, and therefore disobeying the laws would not always be unjust. While Kraut believes that Socrates may have proposed leeway for persuasion, I find this belief doubtful considering the end result of Socrates’ death with very little or no protest. Instead I believe that Socrates held a very totalitarian view on government, especially considering that he was willing to give up his life to hold this view. Premise 5 of Kraut’s layout of Socrates’ argument, “Whoever destroys a city, for his part, uses violence against that city,” is not specifically mentioned in “Crito,” rather it can be implied logically as it is necessary to imply the conclusion of the argument. It is fairly intuitive, and therefore reasonable for Socrates’ to have used it as an implied premise, for this reason it has been added to the argument. With this assumption, and the aforementioned supplied premises, we are ready to follow them logically to see how Socrates arrived at his final conclusion. Using Premises 2, 3, 4, and 5, we see the following logical train of sequences: If Socrates escapes, Socrates would be destroying Athens, for his part, and if Socrates destroys Athens for his part, Socrates uses violence against Athens. Therefore if Socrates escapes, Socrates uses violence against Athens. (7) Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates and if Athens is responsible for the birth and education of Socrates, then Socrates treats Athens unjustly if Socrates uses violence against Athens. Therefore if Socrates uses violence against Athens, then Socrates treats Athens unjustly. (8) Using the newly created premises (7) and (8) drawn from logical conclusions, we can conclude Premise 6, “If Socrates escapes, Socrates treats Athens unjustly.” With this premise now proven, and also taking into the account of the very first premise to be agreed upon by Crito and Socrates, “One must never treat any city or person unjustly,” we are forced to come to no conclusion other than “Socrates must not escape.” This would be a fine ending of the Crito, should the whole passage be written logically, but strangely enough, even after Socrates has presented enough material to complete a good argument against escaping from prison, he continues for quite a while, personifying the Laws, giving even further reasons for why escape should not be attempted. It is only after this emotional addition to “Crito” that Socrates considers the matter finished, and Crito agrees. The final arguments provided by the Laws do not follow that of Socrates’ original wisdom to appeal to one who has knowledge; rather they appear to Crito’s original concerns, those of the masses. If Socrates were to leave, he would have nowhere to go. Should Socrates go to Thebes or Megara, which Socrates believes to possess good governments, he will “arrive as an enemy to their government; all who care for their city will look upon [Socrates] with suspicion, as a destroyer of the laws.” (53a-b) The Laws further bring up the issues which Crito had addressed at the beginning of the passage. First, the Laws tell Socrates that his image could be tarnished by escaping prison, that if he were to ever annoy someone, “many disgraceful things will be said about [him].” (53e) The Laws also bring up Socrates’ children, informing Socrates that should Socrates stay in prison his friends will look after them, but should he escape and eventually find eternity in the underworld, his friends may not look after Socrates’ children. These arguments should be of no concern to Socrates, as he has already decided to do what he decides is just, despite what popular opinion may be. Perhaps this emotional rambling is merely for Crito’s sake, to make Crito firmly believe and agree with Socrates’ decision to remain in prison until his eventual execution. Whether or not it is the case, I believe the last part of “Crito” regarding these issues brought up by the Laws to be unnecessary for Socrates’ argument. Work Cited Kraut, Richard. Socrates and the State. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1984.
DJ FC Guest Posts: n/a