In Crito, a play by Plato, Socrates and Crito deliberate about the justifications of breaking out of prison. Crito provides numerous evidences that should appeal to Socrates emotional side by bringing up his friends and family, however, Socrates maintains his composure. Instead he contributes a logical and concise argument to act justly by staying in prison and accepts his punishment for ‘corrupting the youth’, among other things. I believe that Socrates argument is most effective due to his content, which is filled with logic and reasoning to prove his premises, as well as his style; not filled with flare and insignificant common phrases. Socrates most effective strategy is his use of logos, he always uses rationale and logic to decide his next point or explain his most recent assertion. I believe the most …show more content…
His point of not listening to the majority, but rather those who understand justice and truth, gives way to his final argument that makes all of Crito’s reasoning invalid: the majority opinions of reputations give no weight in their actions, therefore they only act on what would be just, honoring Socrates agreement to Athens laws and the punishment he chose is just, thus breaking out of jail is unjust, and living an unjust life is not important. The only thing that matter is living well and that is to never stop striving for virtuous things such as goodness, truth, and justice. I believe this is still very true for people of today. Being a part of the ‘millennial’ generation is a very interesting thing because, while some of us are perpetuating the stereotype of YOLO and not caring about the future, many of us are become more and more aware of the problems and injustices of the modern world. The young adults are sparking protests and change, demanding equality, and speaking up for those kept silenced. The corrupt and unjust have held power for so long, and while they may
However, instead of planning the escape Socrates started the dialog about why he would rather obey the law and be executed. At first, Crito presented two arguments to
For the individuals who are searching for a tasteful meaning of devotion, the discourse is a failure, for no conclusion has been come to concerning the exact idea of that goodness. It has now and again been kept up that the genuine motivation behind logic isn't to answer addresses yet rather scrutinize the appropriate responses that have been given. Anyways, this is precisely what Socrates has been doing in this back and forth. Euthyphro has displayed a few speedy and prepared responses to the inquiry "What is devotion?" however upon magnification, each of these questions has appeared to be unsuitable.
In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.
The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
In Plato’s Crito, Socrates has a conversation with Crito, who’d come to visit Socrates in his jail cell. As Socrates had been anticipating his death, one personality trait he exhibits is a very pragmatic sense of thinking. In their conversation, Socrates spoke on his awaited execution saying, “It's because it would be out of tune, Crito, to be angry at my age if I must finally die.” This quote shows a tremendous amount of wisdom and it illustrates the peace of mind that he’d consistently carried with him. Death is a concept that can be mentally straining to gloss over for even the smallest of times; that being said, the fact Socrates is able to look at such a daunting theory and still have the ability to remain as level-headed as he did
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
For most, a wise conclusion would not end in welcoming death with the chance to escape an unjust conviction; yet, in Socrates case it did. By definition, logos is the use of documentation, facts, or inference to create a concrete argument; and it is present during each debate betwixt Crito and Socrates. Observing Socrates positions, “At the same time, I should like you to consider whether we are still satisfied on this point: that the really important thing is not to live, but to live well.” (Crito, pg 888), we are given an answer from Crito after he agrees
Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.
The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity. The Apology is Socrates defending not only himself, but also philosophy as an area of study that could be useful to the city of Athens. Socrates is trying to defend himself and his study and he tries to distance himself from the sophists in that they charge for money.
In the Apology Socrates defends himself against the charges brought against him by his prosecutor Meletus in two ways. In the first way Socrates describes his method and
Matthew Lee Stanton Philosophy 101 Dr. C. Scott Sevier Paper 1 Critos 's Three Arguments The first of Crito 's three arguments is Crito feels he will be losing a friend and that people will think he had the money to save him but did nothing. Nothing is worse than people thinking you care more about money than friendship. (Crito,44c). Crito seems to be afraid of the majority rule since the majority can inflict the most harm. Crito does not want Socrates to think that money is the issue.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely. Similarly, a soul holds the essence of life through immortality, however the soul is not immortal itself and only participates in immortality, just as the number three participates in being odd. Additionally, an essence or form cannot admit to the opposite of itself just as small cannot be large simultaneously, and hot cannot be cold.
Where the people have authority over the laws, demagogues tear