The Arguement Of The Two Conflicting Views Of Socrates
In this paper, I will argue the two conflicting views of Socrates. The varying aspects are that Socrates implies that one ought to always obey the dictates of reason, while on the other hand, he recommends that one should always obey the law.
The apparent self contradiction is Socrates’ withholding to acquire the courts penalty if the court made him stop using philosophy. Socrates states in the Apology, that if the court lets him keep using it, they will hold him together for him not to implement philosophy from now on. By he states that no matter what happens, he will always keep practicing philosophy no matter the case of what happens to him.
Meanwhile in the text Crito, Socrates says how important it is not to break free from his prison because he has to follow the law and the punishments followed along.
A brief description of the context in which self contradiction occurs is in The Apology of Socrates stating, “Men of Athens, I respect and love you, but I shall obey god rather than you, and while I live and am able to continue, I shall never give up philosophy or stop exhorting you and pointing out the truth to any one of you whom I may meet, saying in my accustomed way.” (29D)
Socrates employs elenchos in the Crito dialogue by asking an interrogation of questions and answers. Crito seeks to persuade Socrates to escape from prison where Socrtaes will be executed. Socrates summons Crito of persuading him to avoid judgement. Socrates asks him questions based on the instability of Crito's plan. Meanwhile, the speech Socrates represented in The Apology shows that he is an expert or professional in a sense.
Also, Socrates leaves him in a distraction. The post- aporia leads to Socrates’ question and answer phase of questions about justice.
It would be big if it turned out that Socrates is contradicting himself because Socrates clearly specifies that he would continue to use philosophy even if the court told him not to. Although, he accepts a death sentence and does not want to escape from it, he decided to obey the state laws.
An interpretation that accounts for the self-contradiction is very important and superior. The interpretation that suggests that Socrates inadvertently contradicting himself is implausible is when Socrates uses similarities to summon Meletus about the laws for example. Socrates states in The Apology of Socrates that it takes an expert or someone in the profession to train horses. He starts to think about if training the youth takes as much dedication as it is to do this profession of training horses. My view is that Socrates argues that Meletes’ claim itself is manipulative and is implausible in comparison.
In the text Crito, Socrates states, “You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey.” (46B) Socrates is technically saying that one must obey the law in this phrase. My view is that Socrates is not contradicting himself, although this phrase in Crito states, “We must therefore examine whether we should act in this way or not, as not only now but at all times I am the kind of man who listens only to the argument that on reflection seems best to me.” (50E) The reasoning of his different remarks in the Crito text was that he is trying to change Critos character and the way he thinks. Socrates effects Crito by using ideas to the many. For example, talking about loyalty and fear in Crito.
Crito does not acquire or receive Socrates' statements about the soul. His focus is with the body itself because he doesn’t consider doing something like corruption as something that is dangerous. Socrtaes tried to change this perspective that Crito has. Socrates failed to convince his friend using the philosophical method he wants, and making use of oratory.
Crito stated that the opinion of the majority should be apprehensive because they have the capability and strength for people to die in a way. Socrates thinks that death is not an immoral concept, and is not something surprising for him. However, the majority do not have the capability and strength to make a person wise or foolish. The important concept is that they have the competence of bringing people to die, but not to change someone's soul.
Crito and Socrates trying to save their old friends for one last time makes Socrates give his cause and motive that if he does not escape, Crito will lose his old friend. Another negative aspect in this case would be that the majority will judge him for not saving his old friend.
When Socrtaes mentioned the Corybants in the text Crito, he stated, “As the Corybants seem to hear the music of their flutes, and the echo of these words resounds in me, and makes it impossible for me to hear anything else.” (54D) This means that Socrates balances his prospering speech of the laws to the Corybantic flutes, it shows that they were very roaring and deafening. Meanwhile, the Corybants would make up Critos soul because of how theriputic they are.
In the text Phaedo, which comes after Crito, concerns the interconnection of a tale and philosophy. A fragment of the text conversation boarders a consideration of the philosophers viewpoint of what to think about death. The overall conversation starts concerning the willingness to die. Cebes sees this judgements of philosophers confusing, which is why it is not shameful to have the willing to die, but you cannot actually do it. The answer socrates gives is that the gods are out defender and if one does not have the blessing to commit the willingness to die, it is very shameful.
The answer Socrates states emerges to contradict the claim he has said before about the philosophers should be prepared to die. Socrates later advances to defend his own opinion. Socrtaes is now anticipating the explanation will be persuasive to them and the Jury itself. This example in the text Phaedo is mentioning to his safeguarding and security at his trial, which is also portrayed and conveyed in The Apology.
Socrtaes is not being perfectly honest about his beliefs, at least during the speech of the laws. The reasoning of this was to change Crito’s views in which he did not agree with. In the text Crito, Crito’s character was not what Socrates wanted him to think. Socrates’ tried persuading Crito to different beliefs by using different forms of ideas to the many
In this paper, I have argued that Socrates espouses two conflicting viewpoints. On one hand, he implies that one ought to always obey the dictates of reason, while on the other hand, he recommends that one always obey the law. I have captured the self contradiction and elaborated its significance, which is Socrates’ withholding to acquire the court’s penalty if the court made him stop using philosophy. I also proposed at least one interpretation that avoids the charge of self-contradiction, which is Socrates’ summoning of Crito’s persuasion to avoid judgement. Lastly, I considered and responded to at least one possible objection to my chosen interpretation.
