It is through “the Apology” and “the Crito” by which Socrates and Plato indicate their views on wisdom, reason, death, and our duty to the state. “The Apology” is founded in Socrates’ trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, as his teachings were viewed as a potential threat to the political status quo. It is in Plato’s account of Socrates’ trial that we learn of his ideas on logic and rhetoric, human wisdom, and the irrational human fear of death. This is then followed by Plato’s “the Crito” which depicts Socrates’ conversation with a fellow student named Crito on his acceptance of the jury’s verdict of execution. It is in this dialog that Socrates depicts his issues with the “appeal to the people”, the relationship between a city and its citizens, the invalidity of disobeying laws, and a basic precursor to what we now know as the social contract, which is heavily discussed by philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. As with all philosophical discourse, the dialogs have certain weaknesses that call into question the logic of Socrates’ ideas on a citizen’s duty to the state, as well as his decision to accept the jury’s verdict of execution.
“The Apology” encompasses Plato’s recount of Socrates’ defense of his teachings. Here, Socrates attacks the method in which his opposition is attempting to convince the jury of his crimes by shedding light on the difference between logic and rhetoric. Socrates states “…unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for then I do indeed admit that I am eloquent”, meaning that his eloquence is derived in his use of logic and truth, unlike his opponents and “sophists” who attempt to sound sophisticated and lie while making their case against him and prepare others to do the same. To Socrates and Plato, truth was the ultimate goal in logic, philosophy, and science, while rhetoric was an underhanded tactic of persuasion in politics and law.
This then leads to Socrates’ view on human wisdom, as he recounts the Oracle of Delphi, who stated that Socrates is the wisest of all man. Although Socrates doesn’t accept the title, he attempts to identify the meaning and source of human wisdom. He concludes that the Oracle did not mean to explicitly name himself as the wisest of all men, but rather used him as a metaphor for men who understand that their knowledge is limited by their existence as humans, and that God is the wisest. Thus, the wisest man is the one who understands that they will always have more to learn and understand about life, rather than the man who disproves others and/or feels as if they know everything about a particular subject. Therefore, if any person were to claim they were wise, they would automatically lose any claim to human wisdom.
Later in the trial, Socrates ponders the idea of execution and states “a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad”. What Socrates ultimately tries to convey is that there are things in life worse than death, especially you character while living. Rather than live life in accordance with their fear of death, Socrates believes life should be led on the basis of whether or not actions one may take are good or bad, just or unjust. He then uses the example of Achilles, who valiantly rode into battle not fearing death, but fearing disgrace, as all men should aim to do in their lives. He goes on to describe fearing death as irrational as dishonorable as well, as those that fear death assume that it is the greatest evil, even though no mere mortal could ever know what the afterlife looked like. To be afraid of death would then mean to act as if they had the knowledge of what the afterlife was like, which only God knew. This is thus a lack of wisdom, as those who fear death, think they know more about death than they could ever understand or actually physically find out while still alive.
In regards to “the Apology”, Socrates/Plato convey their ideas on the duty of a citizen to the state, which in this case would be Athens. Socrates understands that he has been wronged in terms of the Jury’s conviction but rather than escape alive in dishonor, he chooses rather to accept his fate of execution at the hand of the state he loves, even after debating his student Crito on the logic of it. Crito aimed to persuade Socrates to escape through three main arguments: that staying brings about what his enemies want, that he would desert his children and students, and that he would choose the dishonorable path, which would contradict his own teachings.
Socrates’ response focusses mainly on labelling Crito’s arguments as “an appeal to the masses”, a fallacy that attempts to logically justify a course of action and label it through the popularity of a decision, rather than through logic or understanding. To Socrates, the opinion of the many should not be considered on matters of morality. It is encapsulated best by the quote "If many believe so, it is so", as the fallacy assumes that a statement is true if the majority support it as true. Socrates likens this to a gymnast or general athlete during competition. Rather than take advice from the crowd, an athlete must always take advice from experts of sport and to health, as they know best even if they are the minority. Therefore, just because his enemies would be pleased with his death, his children would be devastated, and others may believe that he is taking the easier path, he believes that their views should not be considered in his decision. Rather than do what is right or wrong to other Athenian citizens, he is bound to do what is morally right in his own view, which to him means abiding by the laws of Athens and accepting his execution.
This then leads to the argument at the heart of “the Crito”, the relationship between citizens and their state/city and the morality of vengeance. Socrates understood that the majority of Athenians would have wanted him dead in order to preserve the political status quo, however, he believes that taking vengeance on the unjust ruling of execution would be both harmful to Athens and fundamentally immoral. Rather than take vengeance in the form of escaping execution, Socrates believed that it was immoral to harm others in vengeance, even if they harmed him first. To Socrates, vengeance was the morality of many, and vengeance in the form of breaking laws, even if that meant surviving, was immoral. Paired with Socrates’ theory of “do no harm” was his belief that disobeying the laws of a city or state was equal to destroying them in the long run. In his case, although the law did him harm by sentencing him to death, he did not believe he should take vengeance by breaking the laws of Athens and escaping for survival.
This decision was borne out of Socrates’ idea on how citizens and their states are related. Socrates likened the relationship to that of a parent and its child, as the city and its laws provided for your education, health, livelihood, and an innumerable amount of benefits. Socrates even went as so far to say that the city and its laws deserved greater respect and obedience that even one’s parents. Thus, even if the city and its laws harmed a citizen, they would have no right in disobeying the verdict and taking vengeance by breaking the law. To Socrates, the bond between a city and its citizens was cemented by an “implied contract”, which was implicitly agreed upon by any citizen living in a city, as they had every opportunity to leave. For Socrates, to live in a city, meant that you had to also love its laws and abide by them.
However, there are a number of critiques to Socrates’ ideas in the Crito, as referenced by Rachels. For one, Socrates’ belief that his single act of disobeying the law to escape persecution would destroy the law, may be too much of an overreach. This would only work if a large section of society habitually broke the laws of a city. Rachels also believes that the parent analogy Socrates uses is flawed as a child’s obligation to obey their parents is broken when a person becomes an adult, which thus allows for civil disobedience. Lastly, Rachels believes that the “implied contract” that Socrates references is missing a key feature, a clause that allows for the dissolution of the contract. No contracts can always be binding, therefore at some point there must be a release clause for each party. In the case of Socrates, a wrongful sentence to death would have justified breaking the contract.
留言