Socrates' "Apology" and "Crito"

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the conflicts between the dialogues of "Allegory of the Cave" and "Divided Line" from Socrates' works "Apology" and "Crito". It looks at how in "Apology", Socrates stipulates that if the court would discharge him on the condition that he no longer practice philosophy, he would not obey the law and how in the "Crito" he argues that the laws must be obeyed, firstly because if they are not then a city cannot function and secondly because escaping would constitute and unjust act. It analyzes whether it is possible for Socrates to disobey the court's ruling in the "Apology" and argue that one must never disobey a law in the "Crito" .

From the Paper:

"Socrates also likens the relationship between citizen and state to that of child and parent (Crito, 50d). To avoid punishment would be akin to that of not abiding by the decision one's parents made, effectively claiming that the state had no right to judge one in the first place. Socrates points out that if one thought this then one is free to leave the state, but by remaining there they effectively sign a contract to abide by the state's rulings (Crito, 52e). Socrates points out that he is not an equal to the state's laws, but an inferior and must abide by their decisions."

More papers on Socrates' "Apology" and "Crito":

• Persuasive Essay # 105593 : "Apology and Crito"
• Essay # 46017 : "Socrates, Obedience and the Law"
• Essay # 3608 : "Socrates-Trial and Death"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: