✎✎✎ Socrates Right To Crito Analysis
Socrates claims at his trial Socrates Right To Crito Analysis this Socrates Right To Crito Analysis what prevented him from entering into politics, explaining further that: "The reason for this is something you have heard me frequently mention in different Socrates Right To Crito Analysis, the fact that I experience Socrates Right To Crito Analysis divine and daimonic, as Meletus has inscribed in his indictment, by way Socrates Right To Crito Analysis mockery. Even if the reader Socrates Right To Crito Analysis some of your Analysis Of Latino Heat By Eddie Guerrero are false, your paper can be excellent if you do a solid job of defending your claims. Socrates Right To Crito Analysis Koinon. Socrates Right To Crito Analysis my opinion, Socrates was right to stay and take his punishment; even though he Socrates Right To Crito Analysis not truly guilty, because in Socrates mind he is doing what is Underprivileged Schools Essay will for his life. Auflage BerlinS.
Lecture The Crito Socrates in Prison
Secondly, it might be objected that Socrates' view of the moral authority of the state is inconsistent both with what he did when ordered by the Thirty to capture Leon of Salamis for execution, and with what he says he'd do if ordered by the state to cease practicing philosophy both from the Apology. When the Thirty ordered him to capture Leon, he refused, on the grounds that this would have been wrong unjust and impious.
Apology , 32c-d This seems to be a recognition that one is morally obligated or at least permitted to disobey the state when what it commands is wrong--even if one fails to persuade it of its wrongness. And similarly, Socrates makes clear that he would disobey the state and continue philosophizing if it were to order him to stop--again, on the grounds that it would be wrong for him to stop philosophizing recall that he saw philosophy as his life's mission, given him by the god. Apology , 29c-d Again, this seems to contradict what he says in the Crito about the supreme moral authority of the state and its laws and orders. I believe, however, that it is possible to read the crucial passages about the authority of the state in the Crito in such a way as to render them consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do wrong, and with his remarks about disobedience in the Apology.
To see this, it is necessary to distinguish first of all between two issues: a what the law might require you to do , and b what the law might require you to endure. With this distinction in mind, consider the following possible interpretations of Socrates' claim about the moral authority of the state in the Crito :. There are passages that might seem to suggest i e. Thus, a more charitable reading would interpret the passages about the moral authority of the state as referring implicitly to cases where the state does not require one to do anything unjust, but merely to endure something or perhaps to do something that is not itself unjust, such as rendering some political service.
If the passages are read in this way, we can interpret Socrates' claim as ii above. When he says that one must obey the state's final laws and orders, what he means is that one must do anything it tells one to do within the bounds of justice , and that one must endure anything it tells one to endure. Thus, Socrates was not obligated to capture Leon of Salamis, and would not be obligated to cease philosophizing if ordered to, since that would be doing something wrong i. The latter is true, according to Socrates, even though the punishment is wrong; for by suffering it, he is not himself doing anything wrong, but only enduring something wrong.
This is perfectly consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do anything wrong. Thus, what at first appears to be a blatant contradiction among Socrates' various claims is fairly easily remedied if we interpret the relevant passages in the Crito as making the claim in ii rather than the claim in i above. This interpretation is supported not only by the fact that it helps to reconcile Socrates' seemingly contradictory claims, but also by the fact that Socrates' examples of obedience to the state over one's own objections all involve having to endure something, rather than having to do something. He speaks in Crito 51b, for example, of having to "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.
Therefore, it is consistent with the text to interpret him as making only the claim in ii, which is fully compatible with his claim that one must never do wrong, and with his claim that under certain conditions one should refuse to do something the state orders such as refusing to capture someone for an unjust execution, or refusing to cease carrying out your divine mission as long as you live.
As for the plausibility of Socrates' view, I believe that it is still overly demanding, even when qualified as in ii above. It's unclear why any of the factors Socrates mentioned should give the state such overriding moral authority that one should be morally obliged to endure execution without resistance even in cases where the state is genuinely in the wrong. It seems more plausible to hold that if one stands to be unjustly executed, one can rightly resist this punishment even if it would equally be permissible not to resist.
One could do this, I think, without showing any contempt for the laws, or challenging their authority, since one still grants the state's authority to do its best to carry out the punishment, and simply asserts a moral right to do one's best in turn to avoid such wrongful punishment. But that's a topic for another paper. Note, first of all, the concise, crisp introduction. The problem is plainly stated, and then I explain clearly what I'm going to do in the paper--all in just a few sentences. There's no rambling introduction with sentences starting with "Since the beginning of time, mankind has pondered the mysteries of etc.
The style is straightforward, striving for clarity rather than literary flair. Jargon is avoided as far as possible. After the introduction, the problem is stated in more depth and detail, with textual references. Notice the spare use of quotes. I quote only a few words here and there, where necessary to illustrate the points. This might be extended to a few sentences, if necessary, but beware of over-quoting and letting someone else's words do your work for you.
The worst mistake is just stringing together quotes, which accomplishes nothing. Notice also that textual references are given for the quotes, as well as for paraphrased passages. Normally, I'd use footnotes and have complete citations, but I'm limited by html format here. Notice how, in describing the problem, I try to elucidate it, rather than just summarizing it. Summary is not explanation. Instead, I try to make clear where exactly the tensions among the various claims seem to arise and why, and how they apply to Socrates' own case. I've tried to go well beyond the superficial statement of the problem in the essay question, to illuminate and develop it.
Now having done that, one might just stop and claim to have answered the question: "No, the various positions are not consistent, and Socrates is just contradicting himself. Instead, I tried to dig beneath the surface a little bit, and to notice that the central claim can be interpreted in more than one way. So I first of all made a distinction between two possible interpretations, which in turn depended on a distinction between what you might be commanded to do and what you might be commanded to endure.
That distinction enabled me to argue for an interpretation of what Socrates is claiming about the moral authority of the state that renders this claim consistent with his other claims. Noticing and exploiting distinctions is a large part of what doing philosophy is all about. Whether or not you agree with that particular argument, you can see the difference between bringing the discussion to that level of detail and merely staying on the surface. So even if you would have taken a different position, the point is that a good paper would still be engaging with the issues at that level of depth, rather than remaining on the surface.
If you think Socrates really is contradicting himself, for example, you might then also discuss the distinctions I pointed out, but then argue for an interpretation along the lines of the first interpretation instead, despite the inconsistencies with other things he says. Of course, you'd have to be able to give an argument for why the text should be understood in that way, despite the fact that Socrates winds up with rather glaringly conflicting claims on that reading.
Again, notice that I am striving for clarity , precision and thoroughness , along with a straightforward organization for the paper. General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers Clarity and straightforwardness of thought and language are crucial: avoid flowery styles and long, superfluous introductions and conclusions. No paper should ever start with a sentence like: "Since the dawn of time, mankind has pondered the question of If you are writing an essay in response to an assigned essay topic, the most important thing is simply to make sure you answer the question that was asked , carefully and thoroughly.
In fact, he does not fear death because he says "to fear death is to think that we know what we do not," and he is absent of this delusion of understanding what death could mean without ever seeing it. In " Apology ," Plato describes Socrates at his trial in B. The oracle's answer — that no human was wiser than Socrates — left him bewildered, so he embarked on a quest to find someone wiser than himself in order to prove the oracle wrong. What Socrates found, though, was that although many people had particular skills and areas of expertise, they all tended to think they were wise about other matters too — such as what policies the government should pursue — when they clearly were not.
He concluded that the oracle was right in a certain limited sense: he, Socrates, was wiser than others in this one respect: that he was aware of his own ignorance. This awareness goes by two names that seem virtually opposed to one another: " Socratic ignorance " and "Socratic wisdom. Socratic wisdom is a sort of humility: it simply means being aware of how little one really knows; how uncertain one's beliefs are; and how likely it is that many of them may turn out to be mistaken.
In the "Apology," Socrates doesn't deny that true wisdom — a real insight into the nature of reality — is possible; but he seems to think it is enjoyed only by the gods, not by human beings. Share Flipboard Email. Emrys Westacott. Professor of Philosophy. Emrys Westacott is a professor of philosophy at Alfred University. He is the author or co-author of several books, including "Thinking Through Philosophy: An Introduction. Updated February 23, Cite this Article Format. Westacott, Emrys. Socratic Wisdom.John Socrates Right To Crito Analysis. In Socrates Right To Crito Analysis to careful explanation of positions or arguments, some paper topics ask Tom Racism Quotes critical evaluation of Socrates Right To Crito Analysis positions and arguments. Socrates A Longing Love By Pablo Neruda alone from the prytany in refusing to Socrates Right To Crito Analysis this unconstitutional stance.