Product Code Database
Crito ( or ; ) is a dialogue written by the ancient Greece philosopher Plato. It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito of Alopece regarding justice ( δικαιοσύνη), injustice ( ἀδικία), and the appropriate response to injustice. It follows Socrates' imprisonment, just after the events of the Apology.
In Crito, Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government. In contemporary discussions, the meaning of Crito is debated to determine whether it is a plea for unconditional obedience to the laws of a society. The text is one of the few Platonic dialogues that appear to be unaffected by Plato's opinions on the matter; it is dated to have been written around the same time as the Apology.
Plato's representation of Socrates is a literary work, so the historical validity of what was said and how much of Plato's interpretation of Socrates aligns with his real beliefs is uncertain. According to Xenophon, Plato's friends drafted escape plans. The extent the theoretical plan aligned with the historical ones is unknown. Some historians of philosophy assume the Socratic figure depicted in Crito is similar to the historical figure. William K. C. Guthrie considers the social contract to be true to Socrates' philosophical interests.
After hearing Crito's arguments, Socrates asks to be allowed to respond with a discussion of related, open-ended issues. Socrates first says the opinions of the educated should be taken into consideration and that the opinions of those with subjective biases or beliefs may be disregarded. Likewise, the popularity of an opinion does not make it valid. Socrates uses the analogy of an athlete listening to his physician rather than his supporters because the physician's knowledge makes his opinion more valuable.46b–47d According to Socrates, damage to the soul in the form of injustice makes life worthless for a philosopher in the same way life for a person who has injured himself out of incompetence is pointless. A person's goal should be to live a virtuous and just life rather than a long one, thus escape from the prison would rely on a discussion on justice.47d–48c Socrates disregards Crito's fears of a damaged reputation and his children's futures, which are irrelevant to him. He compares such motivations to a person who sentences someone to death and then regrets the action.48c–d Socrates then says Crito and his friends should know better because they have shared the same principles for a long time and that abandoning them at their age would be childish. To wrong the state, even in reaction to an injustice, would be an injustice.49a–e
Socrates then points out the question would then be whether he should harm someone or ignore a just obligation. To solve this question, Socrates asks Crito to imagine justifying the decision to escape Athens before the laws and the state themselves, as if they could speak directly.49e–50a According to Socrates, the laws would argue a state cannot exist without respect for its rules. They would criticise Socrates for believing he and every other citizen had the right to ignore court judgements because chaos could ensue.50a–c If Socrates were to accept Crito's offer, he would be known as someone who exposed his accomplices to the risk of fleeing or losing their assets. As a fugitive in a well-established state, good citizens would be suspicious of Socrates because he would be suspected of violating the laws in his place of exile, so he would have to live somewhere chaotic and disorganised, and where he could only entertain crowds with the story of his unjust escape. As a philosopher who had become unfaithful to his principles, he would be discredited and would have to give up his previous life content and his sense of life would only be through food.53a–54b In conclusion, if Socrates accepts his execution, he will be wronged by men rather than the law, remaining just. If he takes Crito's advice and escapes, Socrates would wrong the laws and betray his lifelong pursuit of justice.54b–d
After Socrates concludes this exposition, he likens the conviction he has to the Korybantes, who seem to hear the music of their flutes to the exclusion of all else, and asks Crito to rebuff him if he wishes. Crito has no objections.54d
Roman philosopher and politician Cicero interpreted Crito to mean citizens are obliged to serve the state out of gratitude.
The philosopher Athenaeus said Crito serves as Plato's means of attacking the real-life Crito; because Crito showed no philosophical ability, his inability to present a proper argument is to be expected.
The philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff found no philosophical content in Crito. According to him, the dialogue teaches "about the duty of the citizen, but not in the abstract, rather Socratic; Athenian". Gabriel Danzig states the text presents Socrates as an "embarrassingly obedient and dutiful citizen"; in doing so, Plato wanted to justify him "to the good citizens who did not care about philosophy".
Danzig added that in contemporary specialist literature, Plato is considered to be only concerned with making Socrates understandable to his readers rather than philosophically presenting and justifying universal principles. Olof Gigon saw the dialogue as a light work that is welcoming to aspiring philosophers. Despite this, the work was regarded as a key Western parallel to Legalism according to philosopher Reginald E. Allen. Hellmut Flashar argued that despite its initial appearances, Crito depth can be discerned through dialogue and that in doing so, it may be revealed as a difficult text.
In modern discussions of law and order, the responsibilities of citizens to follow rules unconditionally has many commonalities with Crito's presentation of Crito's lenient understanding of the Laws and Socrates' rigid one. (1989). 9780887069161, State University of New York Press. ISBN 9780887069161 According to Flashar, attempting to apply modern ideas to Platonic philosophy estranges the themes.
According to Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, the representation of Socrates in Crito is the quintessential version of him and the piece may have been a request by Socrates himself. In tandem with the Apology, Socrates' last will may be formed. Socrates, who was convicted as an Athenian, chose not to flee Athens because of his virtue as an Athenian and the loyalty to the state that follows. If he chose to go into self-exile as Crito had suggested, he would undermine the fundamental system the state he pledges allegiance to was based upon. Peter Sloterdijk said Crito is one of the "initial texts of philosophy par excellence" with which Plato founded "a new way of looking for the truth". Crito was the defender of this world against the death of his master. He played a "half ridiculous, half moving role". For Socrates, life was a lesson so he consequently "turned his last breath into an argument and his last hour into evidence".
Sandrine Bergès proposed a Liberalism interpretation of the law in which the agreement between the state and the individual implies a mutual obligation. The legislation provides the citizens' livelihoods and an environment conducive to their prosperity and so they consider themselves to be loyal to the laws. Prosperity, in the sense of Socrates, means the formation of character – the acquisition of virtue as a prerequisite for a good life. In this sense, the analogy of the relationship between parent and child is to be understood as parents having the obligation to educate their children to be good people and can expect their children's obedience in return. The laws promote the virtue of citizens and should therefore be respected. In both cases, the parent entity must fulfil its obligation to be eligible for obedience. In the relationship between Socrates and the Athenian laws, this was the case despite the judgement of the court. If it was otherwise, there would be no obligation to comply with the laws.
According to Richard Kraut, the laws require a serious effort to command respect. If this attempt was to fail, civil disobedience would be permissible. A number of critics, however, argue this could not be inferred from the text; rather, in the event of a failure of the conviction attempt, unconditional obedience to the law was demanded. According to David Bostock, the authoritarian concept is the exact view Plato wanted to convey in Crito, but in later works Plato recognized the problems with this position and modified his point of view. A number of other commentators support the traditional interpretation that the position of the Laws was to identify with the Platonic Socrates. Defenders of the piece say that this view ignores the possibility that the arguments' weaknesses are inherent to the dialectical process.
Although Socrates presents this authoritarian argument to Crito, this does not mean he agrees with the conclusion, only the result; the refusal to flee. According to Verity Harte, when Socrates compares himself at the end of the dialogue to the "Corybants who seem to hear the flutes", this shows that Socrates decision to stay was an irrational aspect that contrasts with the philosophical demand for unconditional reason. According to Roslyn Weiss, Socrates presents an authoritarian argument in favor of respecting the law rather than a reasoned argument because Crito could not follow Socrates' philosophical argument. Thomas Alexander Szlezák also said the justification for Socrates' attitude towards his friend is emotional rather than not philosophically demanding because it is inevitably based on Crito's level of reflection. The crucial point for Socrates is in the Phaedo dialogue rather than Crito. Socrates in Crito avoids using the word "soul" – a concept that is introduced and discussed in various dialogues – and dealt with a metaphysically neutral paraphrase, apparently because Crito does not accept the philosophical assumption of an immortal soul.
Michael Roth claimed that there was no inconsistency, and that the real in Crito and the hypothetical in the Apology were two fundamentally different systems to be held to different standards. According to another solution, Socrates' argument in the Apology was of a purely theoretical nature, since a prohibition of philosophy had no legal basis and no situation was conceivable in which the court could have actually imposed such a penalty on Socrates, unless the defendant had proposed this himself.
Italian historians of philosophy Mario Montuori and Giovanni Reale used chronological distance to explain this difference: that The Apology and the Crito were written at different times and for different reasons. In the Apology — which was the younger work — Plato essentially reported what Socrates had said without much embellishment, but when writing Crito, he had given his thoughts on the matter through the mask of Socrates.
On the other hand, if Socrates' punishment could not occur, professor of morality Necip Fikri Alican argued that Socrates could not simply just be using meaningless thought experiments. Philosophy professor James Stephens simply believed the problem has no solution.
|
|
