প্লেটো – ক্রিতো: কর্তব্য ও ন্যায়বিচার সম্পর্কে একটি সংলাপ

by Plato, আমিনুল ইসলাম ভুইয়া (Translator )

ক্রিতো নামক সংলাপটি অনুষ্ঠিত হয় সক্রেটিসের হেমলকপানে মৃত্যুবরণ করার একদিন কি দুদিন পূর্বে তাঁর ও তাঁর চিরবন্ধু ক্রিতোর মধ্যে। সক্রেটিস তাঁর মৃত্যুদ- কার্যকর হওয়ার জন্য অপেক্ষা করছেন; অপেক্ষার একেবারে শেষ প্রহরে ক্রিতো সক্রেটিসকে জেল থেকে পালিয়ে জীবনরক্ষা করার জন্য অনুরোধ জানান আর সক্রেটিস তার প্রত্যুত্তরে যুক্তি দেখান, কেন সেটা ন্যায়ানুগ নয়। তাঁদের আলাপচারিতার মধ্য দিয়ে ন্যায়পরতা এবং আইনানুযায়িতার ভিন্নতা, ন্যায়-নৈতিকতা ও আইনের ভিন্ন ভিন্ন দাবি, রাষ্ট্রের সাথে ব্যক্তির চুক্তি, রাষ্ট্রকে ‘বুঝিয়ে-শুনিয়ে সম্মত করা, অথবা তার আদেশ-নির্দেশ মেনে নেওয়া’, রাষ্ট্রের সর্বময়, কর্তৃত্বব্যঞ্জক ক্ষমতা—এমনসব প্রসঙ্গ ও প্রশ্ন জেগে ওঠে। রাষ্ট্র ও ব্যক্তির সম্পর্ক নিয়ে এটি প্লেটোর প্রথম রচনা এবং হয়তো বলা যায়, বিশ্বইতিহাসেও প্রথম। প্লেটো এখানে দেখাতে চেষ্টা করেছেন যে, রাষ্ট্রের কর্তৃত্ব হচ্ছে সার্বিক, তাই তার আদেশ-নির্দেশ মাথা পেতে নিতে হবে; কিন্তু রাষ্ট্র যদি অন্যায় আদেশ দেয়, তবে? তবে, তাকে যুক্তি দিয়ে, বুঝিয়ে-শুনিয়ে তা রহিত বা পরিবর্তন করার জন্য রাষ্ট্রকে সম্মত করাতে হবে। যদি তা সম্ভব না হয়? তিনি তার উত্তর দেননি। তিনি সক্রেটিসের জীবন ও পরিণতিকে উদাহরণ হিসেবে তুলে ধরেছেন।

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, Politics, Ancient, History, Greece

58 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 386

About the author

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 4 out of 5]

- Socrates? I'm terribly sorry to be disturbing you shortly before your impending execution, but--

- And who are you?

- My name is Manny. I'm a visitor from the future. I--

- Again. It's been one visitor after another this evening. First my extremely well-meaning friend Crito trying to save me, and then R. Daneel Olivaw from the Trantorian Empire trying to save me, and then two fictitious characters from Ultima Thule who for some reason also thought they would try to save me, and now you. Well. What's on your mind, Manny?

- Uh, I was thinking, I'd try to save you. My time machine is right here, it's big enough for--

- And how would you propose to save me?

- I could take you back to the twenty-first century. You'd like it there. People are more tolerant, you'd be able to say what you want and not get killed by an angry mob. We have freedom of speech, you see.

- Do you indeed?

- Yes, we do. Society has progressed a great deal since your day.

- As it happens, R. Daneel said something rather similar about his age. But perhaps matters went downhill again after your time. It is so easy for the world to relapse into barbarism.

- Uh, well--

- You understand that I see no purpose in leaving. I love Athens. I have devoted my life to this city, which to my mind is the greatest civilization the world has produced or ever will produce. They have condemned me to death, and that saddens me more than I can say, but I would rather accept my sentence than forego their respect to steal a few miserable years among lesser people.

- Oh, but we are not lesser people! Come and see for yourself!

- In fact, the fictitious characters from Thule tried to convince me of the same thing. I declined their offer, but after they left I wondered if I had not been overhasty. The philosopher, Alberto, had many interesting opinions. And his ephebe -- Sofie, if I remember the name aright? - was remarkably attractive. If you have more young boys like that in your time--

- In fact, I should inform you that Sofie was a girl.

- A girl? Really? Her clothing, her general demeanor... well, no matter. Perhaps I have underestimated the charms of fourteen year old girls. I am willing to make the experiment, in a spirit of philosophical openness.

- Uh, Socrates, I should warn you that although our society is very tolerant, you would be advised not to--

- Of course, of course! I have become so forgetful in my old age. Alberto did mention your curious views on eros. I can say what I wish, except in erotic matters.

- Well--

- You are right. I must think less about these trifles. The important thing is that I can speak openly about the gods?

- Yes Socrates. You'll be able to do that at least!

- I am struggling to recall my conversation with Alberto. I believe he mentioned a barbarian god who is much worshipped in your time and who places the strongest prohibitions on his followers. "Allah", or something like that.

- Indeed, Socrates. But you are under no--

- Capital! Probably it comes of having been teased so much by my friend Aristophanes, but I had thought to compose an amusing little sketch, in his style, about the holy man of "Allah". I confess it is beneath me, and in my dear Athens I would have more sense than to do such a thing. In your society, however, I understand I may permit myself this freedom, tasteless and disrespectful as it may be?

- Well, to be honest Socrates, it would probably be safer if you didn't--

- Dear me. So I can say what I wish, except about the erotic and the divine? And possibly a few other things?

- I suppose--

- And if I fail to observe your incomprehensible barbarian laws, I am liable to be put to death?

- You know, you shouldn't--

- Manny, I'm seventy years old. I like to speak my mind. I've managed to upset even my dear countrymen, with whom I've lived all my life, to the point that they have decided to kill me. I doubt it would go much better for me anywhere else. I'd rather die here, in a place I'm familiar with, and not give the people who sentenced me to death the satisfaction of seeing me try to escape.

- But Socrates--

- I know you meant well, Manny. You all did. Crito, and R. Daneel Olivaw, and the two visitors from Ultima Thule. You all meant extremely well. But sometimes there's just no easy solution. And now, I'd like to get some sleep.

- Uh, I'm sorry Socrates. I'll tell the twenty-first century what you said. And it's been a privilege meeting you.

- It's okay, Manny. And don't forget to show people the funny side of it too. Goodnight.

- Goodnight, Socrates.

[Francesc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Critón va a visitar a Sócrates a la prisión y le propone huir. A partir de aquí, se desarrolla el pensamiento socrático a través de sus silogismos sobre lo justo y lo injusto.

----------------------------

Crito goes to visit Socrates in prison and proposes to escape. From this point on, Socratic thought develops through his syllogisms on what is just and what is unjust.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The saga of Socrates’ trial and death continues. This time his friend, Crito, visits him in his cell to try to persuade him to escape into exile. Socrates is true to form, insisting that nothing—not the reputation of himself or his friend, nor concern for his own life—ought to be considered except reason. Crito must attempt to persuade Socrates to escape. The dialogue ends with the famous personification of the Laws of Athens, in the course of which Plato hits upon one of the earliest formulations of the social contract: by living in Athens, Socrates implicitly agrees to be bound by her laws. Since Socrates’ enjoyed the benefits of the laws, he must accept their penalties.

More so than in the Apology, one feels here that this is Plato’s invention and not something that actually occurred. The dialogue seems especially crafted to rehabilitate Socrates’ reputation, portraying the old philosopher as a dutiful citizen with a patriotic love of Athens. As a piece of drama the dialogue is one of Plato’s finest. It has considerable philosophic importance, too, for its aforementioned prefiguring of the social contract. Nevertheless I confess that I find Socrates’ reasoning extremely thin. Surely laws may be unjust; and a law may be just in itself and yet unjust or mistaken in its execution. If that is so, should the citizen passively accept it simply because it is the law? One senses the fine Socratic irony here, too, arguing playfully rather than sincerely. Socrates surely had compelling reasons to accept his death—but one doubts that pure patriotic regard of law was the whole of it.

[Brad Lyerla · Rating 4 out of 5]

CRITO is Socrates’ argument for loyalty to one’s polis. In this short dialogue, Plato recreates Socrates’ conversation with Crito on the eve of Socrate’s death. Crito and others have arranged for Socrates to escape from prison and thereby avoid his sentence to die by drinking hemlock. But Socrates is not persuaded and convinces Crito that it is unprincipled not to obey the law even when one believes the outcome in a particular case is unjust. And not only then, but even when the majority believes the outcome is unjust because the will of the majority does not matter when it is against principle.

As I read, I was not satisfied that I found the principle that Plato intended. It is not identified with clarity by Socrates. One could argue that the principle seems to be that the polis has its rules and that those rules have nurtured and created us. Any such rule cannot be undone by the will of the majority except through an (unexplained) process. Until that happens, the citizens of a community are bound by the rule.

But I am not convinced that Plato’s argument acknowledges any role for a democratic process. Such an explanation makes sense only post-enlightenment. Plato believes in an authority higher than democratic consensus. Tho I tried, I did not discern from the text wherein Socrates believes this higher authority resides or what is its source.

Recently, however, I have come to believe that the principle is as Scott has suggested in his very insightful comment below. For which, I thank him.

Read CRITO for yourself and see if you agree. It is a short and fun, but challenging dialogue.

[Sarah Far · Rating 4 out of 5]

کریتون یا اقریطون

سقراط همچون شهروند نیکی نمایش داده شده است که، علی‌رغم محکومیت غیرعادلانه‌اش، حاضر است در راه اطاعت از قوانین کشور از حیات خود طرف‌نظر کند. کریتون و دیگران فرار از زندان را به او پیشنهاد کردند، و برای این کار پول فراهم کردند، اما سقراط اعلام کرد که می‌خواهد:
در اصول خود ثابت‌قدم و استوار بماند.

محاوره‌ی جالبی بود، اما با وجود اینکه قرون زیادی از تصمیم سقراط گذاشته، هنوز نمی‌دونیم کارش درست بوده یا نه؟! (صدالبته که نیمی از این جواب به شرایط محیطی و همچنین تفکر یکی از بزرگترین فیلسوف جهان برمی‌گردد)

[ع. ر. افّلا · Rating 2 out of 5]

آپدیت سی تیر
پس از محکومیت سقراط به مرگ، تعدادی از دوستان او قصد دارد ترتیب فرار او را بدهند (که نویسندهٔ این رساله نیز در میان آنان است) اما او مخالفت می‌ورزد و از اهمیت وطن و قانون و لزوم پاسداری از آن می‌گوید، و فرار را خیانت به این دو می‌داند.






————————————————————————————
* من این رساله را از چهارجلدی کاویانی/لطفی خواندم.

ترن‌آف!
به طور خلاصه نظرم راجع به رساله همین بود که گفتم، اما به طور غیرخلاصه هم عرض خواهم کرد.

- همینگوی
داستان «آدمکش‌ها»ی همینگوی یا تحت تأثیر این رساله بوده است، یا درکل خواندن این رساله و آن داستان مکمل‌های بامزه‌ای‌اند.
داستان همینگوی از جایی شروع می‌شود که چند نفر که به شغل شریف آدمکشی اشتغال دارند، به جایی می‌روند که می‌دانند مقتول بالقوه‌شان زیاد سر می‌زند، اما آن دفعه سر نمی‌زند. نیک آدامز می‌خواهد طرف را مطلع کند، اما می‌بیند پیداکردنش هیچ هم سخت نیست. اما شگفتی تازه شروع شده: وقتی طرف را از خطری که تهدیدش می‌کند مطلع می‌کند، هیچ ری‌اکشن خاصی دریافت نمی‌کند: طرف منتظر مرگ است.
کریتون مربوط به وقایع پسامحکومیت سقراط است که در رسالهٔ آپولوژی شرح آن آمده. کریتون به ملاقاتی سقراط رفته تا ازش خواهش کند فرار کند، و سقراط با کلی استدلال قانعش می‌کند که تمایلی به این کار ندارد.
کاری که همینگوی با سکوت انجام می‌دهد، افلاطون با پرحرفی پیش می‌برد. نبوغ شکل مشخصی ندارد.

- شاترآیلند
در پایان شاترآیلند دی‌کاپریو سؤال جالبی می‌پرسد، که کدام درست است، زندگی مثل یک هیولا، یا مُردن مثل یک آدم؟ سؤالی که فکر می‌کنم سقراط به بدترین شکل بهش پاسخ می‌دهد: مُردن مثل یک هیولا!
برای روشنی این بحث باید ببینیم سقراط تا چه پایه به محکوم‌کنندگانش حق می‌دهد، که در دو سطح جای نقد دارد.
یک: سقراط از زبان جامعه و حکومت می‌گوید که آنها به او هستی داده‌اند (قوانین زناشویی) و تربیتش کرده‌اند، و حالا هم حق دارند جانش را بگیرند، چون همین کار را در سطح خردتر خانواده هم انجام می‌دهد و هر چقدر ارج و قرب داشته باشد خانواده، چندبرابرش را حکومت دارد. درحالیکه وات د هل! هم شما گه خوردید هم خانواده!
دو: سقراط (همچنان از زبان آنها) برای اثبات این نکته که او دارد با قوانین کشورش حال می‌کند این مثال را می‌آورد که در غیر این صورت چرا از آنجا نرفت و در کشور دیگری اقامت نگزید در طول عمرش؟ و در طول محکومیتش چرا اعدام را به تبعید ترجیح داد؟ عین صحبت‌های آن بسیجی که می‌گفت هر کی راضی نیست از جمع کنه بره. البته به دو دلیل می‌توان به سقراط حق داد، یکی اینکه تقریبا در آغاز تاریخ یونان بود و چیز زیادی برای مقایسه نداشت، دوم‌اینکه جامعهٔ ی��نانی واقعا از بالا تا پایین خفن بود (خیلی خفن‌تر از ایران معاصر ما).
اما باز هم این حجم از محافظه‌کاری سقراط حیرت‌انگیز است، از کسی که قهرمان می‌پنداریمش.
جملات مرتبط با این بحث:
مگر تاکنون در��یافته‌ای که بکاربردن زور در برابر پدرومادر گناه است و در برابر وطن گناهی بس بزرگتر؟
کیست که شهری را دوست بدارد ولی قوانین آن را نپسندد.

- آیا واقعا هر پدرومادری عاشق فرزندش است؟
کریتون ضمن اصرارهایش مبنی بر ادامهٔ زندگی سقراط، بحث فرزندانش را هم پیش می‌کشد: یا نمی‌بایست دارای فرزند شوی یا چون شدی نباید آنان را به حال خود رها کنی.
یک روز وقتی به دوستم زینب دربارهٔ این می‌گفتم که مادرم را از ۲ سالگی ندیده‌ام، بهم گفت: یعنی هیچوقت خبری ازت نگرفت؟
من گفتم: جالبه! همه می‌گن یعنی هیچوقت سراغش نرفتی؟ و تو برعکسش رو می‌پرسی. او چیزی شبیه به کریتون بهم گفت. او به قول چندلر مادری است بدون فرزند.

- پوپر
پوپر معتقد بود از صفات نظریات علمی ابطال‌پذیری است. یعنی هر نظریهٔ علمی مادامی معتبر است که زیر سؤال نرفته باشد (البته برای مثال «تکامل» یک نظریه نیست و پارادایم است). این تعبیر به نظر شما تجربه‌گرایانه است یا عقلگرا؟ از طرفی او متری عقلانی برای نظریات علمی در نظر گرفته و از درون تئوری آنها را تعریف می‌کند، اما از طرف دیگر با صفتی که ذکر کرده این امکان را فراهم کرده که هر چیزی ممکن باشد. این را من مرز میان عقلگرایی و تجربه‌گرایی می‌دانم، همینطور این عقیدهٔ سقراط را که: روش من در زندگی همواره پیروی از عقیده‌ای بوده است که پس از پژوهش کافی برتری آن بر دیگر عقاید آشکار شود.

- سیگما یا آلفا؟
سخت بتوان گفت سقراط کدام بود. از طرفی، او به معنی واقعی کلمه به نظر مردم اهمیت نمی‌دهد، و در نهایت بدنامی (فاسدکنندهٔ ذهن جوانان) محکوم می‌شود، اما از طرف دیگر، عرف و قانون و درکل هرم جامعهٔ پدرسالار برای او پذیرفتنی است. گویی برای او جامعه به مثابه یک واقعیت (آدم‌ها، دیگری) اهمیتی ندارد، اما حقیقت جامعه (عرف) برای او پذیرفتنی است. او امگا ست. در ادامهٔ این می‌توانم اضافه کنم که سقراط زیادی منطقی با قضیه برخورد می‌کند، و واقعا نگاهی که به رسالتش دارد پیامبرانه است. می‌گویند «عاقل به کنار جو پی پل می‌گشت/ دیوانهٔ پابرهنه از آب گذشت»، و‌ نمی‌دانم چرا سقراط به جای این‌همه آسمان‌ریسمان تصمیم نگرفت دل به دریا بزند و اول عمل کند و بعد فکر، شاید این کار باعث می‌شد حرف‌هایش را در بوتهٔ آزمایش بگذارد و ببیند چقدر احتمالاتش درست از آب درمی‌آمد.

- دو سر
بهتر از یکی می‌اندیشند از ضرب‌المثل‌های غربی است. این را می‌توان «تفکر شفاهی» نیز قلمداد کرد. تفکری که در عرصهٔ گفتار و با اصابت به دیگری شکل می‌گیرد. سقراط به کریتون می‌گوید: هر دو باید با هم بیندیشیم. اما درمجموع این حرف او شعاری بیش نیست و کل فرآیند بیشتر شبیه هیپنوتیزم کریتون با هزارتوی استدلال‌های سقراط است.

- زدی ضربتی؟
به نظرم واکنش به ظلم را می‌توان در سه ساحت مورد بررسی قرار داد،
یک: مسیح: اگر کسی به یک طرف صورتت سیلی زد، طرف دیگر صورتت را سمت او بگیر تا باز هم بزند.
دو/ یک: کانت: تحت هیچ شرایط نباید مرتکب عمل غیراخلاقی شد.
دو/ دو: سقراط: نباید ظلم را با ظلم پاسخ داد.
سه: کسانی که من با آنها هم‌عقیده‌ام اما اسم خاصی به ذهنم نمی‌آید: ظلم به ظالم مجاز است.
تصور کنید یک خبرگزاری به طور تمام‌وقت مشغول شایعه‌پراکنی و دروغگویی است (البته در کشور ما نیاز به تصور نیست و یادآوری کفایت می‌کند). حال فرض کنید یکی از خبرنگاران آن می‌آیند از شما سؤال حساسی می‌پرسد، آیا دروغگویی به یک دروغگو کار بدی است؟
درکل خوانش‌های جدید اخلاقی (خصوصا در مطالعات درخشان فمنیستی) این جدل مطرح است که آیا می‌توان اخلاق را تعدادی قوانین از-پیش-تعیین‌شده در نظر گرفت و از شرایط و تفاوت‌های شخصیتی صرف‌نظر کرد؟ قاعدتا نه.

[Pia G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

kriton, sokrates’in eski bir dostu olarak onu hapishanede ziyaret eder ve ona kaçması için bir fırsat sunar. sokrates’in vereceği yanıtsa felsefesinin temelini oluşturan ahlâki duruşunu ve siyaset felsefesini yansıtır.

sokrates için mesele yalnızca hayatta kalmak değil, doğruyu yapmaktır. kriton’un sunduğu mantıklı gerekçelere (ailesini ve arkadaşlarını yalnız bırakmamak, haksız bir karara boyun eğmemek) rağmen sokrates kaçmayı reddeder. çünkü ona göre bir yanlışı başka bir yanlışla telafi etmeye çalışmak doğru olmazdı. yani bir birey olarak devletle kurduğu sözsüz anlaşmaya sadık kalmalı ve bu, onun için yaşamaktan daha değerli.

özellikle yasaları birer insan gibi konuşturması çok hoşuma gitti. sokrates, onlarla konuşuyormuş gibi kendi kararını sorguluyor. böylece hem devletle olan ilişkimizi hem de bir yurttaş olarak doğruyu yapma sorumluluğumuzu yeniden düşünmemizi sağlıyor.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the sequel to Plato's Apology . Socrates has been condemned to death, but for religious reasons his execution has been postponed for a few weeks. Crito, one of his friends, has smuggled himself into Socrates' cell late at night and offers to bribe all the necessary persons to get him out of his cell, out of Athens, to a safe place in Thessaly.

As riveting as the Apology is, I find Crito to be extraordinarily moving. Plato places an eloquence and emotive power in Crito's mouth that could hardly fail to sway anyone as he explains the many reasons why Socrates should accede to his proposal.(*) But Socrates remains true to his principles and illustrates Socratic method here in extremis . Instead of drawing his head up and defiantly spouting principles, as so many principled persons have done in history (and such persons are often presented to us as magnificent examples to emulate), Socrates draws Crito into a search for a reasoned response. I don't intend to trace here the turns taken in this search. You should read it. And, ultimately, I don't think it really matters if this search leads to an answer one agrees with. I don't think Plato's intention was to persuade everyone that the answer found is correct for all persons. After all, the search is based upon certain explicit and implicit assumptions which need not be shared by all persons. But even if that were Plato's intention, the appreciation of this beautiful text need not depend upon being so persuaded. It is not we but Socrates who is to be executed, and he clearly explains why he has an obligation he cannot disregard. Our agreement or disagreement is totally immaterial.

And what could Plato have been feeling as he wrote this little gem. Was his heart swelling with pride at the principled stand Socrates took? Were tears of regret limping down his cheeks as Crito tried everything he could to convince Socrates to save his life? Was he calculating the best way to ensure to his teacher's name and ideas the eternity that his body could never have? Really, every aspect of this text is remarkable. I consider it to be one of the finest in Western literature.

(Re-read in Benjamin Jowett's translation.)

(*) One should keep in mind that even if Crito made such an attempt and such a conversation actually took place, Crito could hardly have remembered the conversation word for word. This beautiful and moving conversation is therefore Plato's invention, even if it may have remained faithful to whatever main points Crito was able to recall.

[Knox Merkle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the most powerful evangelical piece of pagan literature that I’ve read. Socrates is so very Christ-like: he’s not afraid of death, he’s extremely magnanimous, and he’s submitting to injustice because there’s a higher justice that will be accomplished through it. I love it.

[Nikola Jankovic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nastavak Odbrana Sokratova jeste kratak, brzo se čita i tako nije velika šteta pročitati ga. U njemu Sokrat brani odluku da će radije da umre nego da pobegne ili traži oprost.

Ipak, nije Kriton na nivou dijaloga koje sam pročitao. Sokratova/Platonova razmišljanja su često problematična - Država, na primer, je odlična vežba za razmišljanje i ima interesantnih ideja, ali i onih koje se graniče sa fašizmom. Ovde je problem da je ideja jedna, a ja na nju gledam potpuno suprotno.

"Tvrdimo li da ni na kakav način ne treba namerno nepravdu činiti? Ili zar u jednim prilikama treba a u drugima ne," počinje Sokrat kako treba, sa svojom večitom temom pravičnosti. To je okej, ali nastavlja da je bolje umreti nego se ogrešiti o zakone/državu i tako načiniti nepravdu Atinjanima.

Koji su to zakoni koje treba poštovati po svaku cenu? Da li su ti zakoni ponekad tumačeni kako je potrebno vlasti? I ko je uopšte država, ko su ljudi na vlasti i kako da ne sumnjamo u njihovu dobronamernost? Da li njegov pogled obesmišljava bilo kakvu promenu vlasti ili sistema, pa kakvi god oni bili?

Svaki put, Platon se može (verovatno i mora) tumačiti iz aktualnog trenutka. Svašta se čovek ovde seti na osnovu naše trenutne vlasti.

[Mohammad Mirzaali · Rating 4 out of 5]

کریتون قبل از اجرای حکم سقراط، به سلولش در زندان می‌رود تا قانعش کند که با کمک او و دیگر هواخواهان سقراط از زندان بگریزد. به طور خلاصه، سقراط در پاسخ به این درخواست استدلال می‌کند که همان‌طور که ظلمِ پدر و مادر مجوزی برای ظلم به پدر و مادر نیست (و اساسا هیچ ظلمی توجیه‌کننده‌ی ظلمی دیگر نیست) پس لطمه‌دیدن از قانون آتن نیز مجوزی برای زیر پا گذاشتن آن فراهم نمی‌کند. او هم‌چنین از بی‌آبرویی در اثر گریختن از حکم مرگ می‌گوید و خود را پیرتر از آن می‌داند تا از مرگ بهراسد

[Amir · Rating 4 out of 5]

محاوره کریتون در زندان رخ می دهد. سقراط به اعدام محکوم شده و موعد مقررِ اجرا درآمدن حکم اعدام را انتظار می کشد. کریتون در این زمان به دیدنش می رود تا او را راضی به فرار از زندان کند. سقراط البته که مخالفت می کند و دیالوگ بر مبنای همین مخالفت سقراط برای فرار از زندان و زیر پا گذاشتن قانون آغاز می شود. سقراط و کریتون تصمیم میگیرند که پاسخی برای این مسئله پیدا کنند که آیا فرار کردن سقراط از زندان و متواری شدنش کار درستیست یا درست آن است که به حکم قانون گردن نهد؟

در انتهای محاوره، سقراط وارد دیالوگ با قوانین می شود و قوانین از زبان او، متقاعدش خواهند ساخت که باید امر قانون را بپذیرد. این مسئله به ما نشان می دهد که قانون و مشروعیتش یکی از مهم ترین بحث های آن دوره بوده. از زمان هزیود که معتقد بود زئوس با بند عدل جهان را محکم نگه داشته بسیار گذشته. فیلسوفان طبیعی الیایی بودند که برای اولین بار از طبیعت اسطوره زدایی کردند و جای افسانه سازی تبیین علی را قرار دادند و به جای اراده خدایان ضرورت را. حالا همین اتفاق در زمین سیاست، قانون و مناسبات شهروندی در حال رخ دادن است. عقل جای اسطوره را میگیرد و بندهای عدالت از دستان هزیود رها می شود و به دست بشر می افتد.

می بینیم که در این زمان دیگر این امکان وجود ندارد که خدایان پشتوانه مشروعیت قوانین پولیس باشند. با وجود تمام اختلافات سقراط و دیگر سوفیست ها با یکدیگر در این نقطه توافق دارند که قوانین پولیس، قراردادی است که شهروندان آزاد شهر میان خود منعقد کردند‌. اما بسیاری از سوفیست ها از همین نقطه به قوانین شهر حمله ور می شوند: قوانین بشر بر ضد ضرورت طبیعت ساخته و پرداخته شده. باید به طبیعت بازگشت. جایی که تنها قانون حاکم، غلبه قوی بر ضعیف است. تنها حق موجود در جهان، حقی است که قوی، به واسطه قدرتش، بر گردن ضعفا دارد. تراسیماخوس در جمهوری را می توانیم نماینده این طرز فکر بدانیم. زمانی که می گوید عدالت یعنی غلبه قدرتمند بر ضعیف.

اینجاست که سقراط خود را هماورد کسانی می بیند که با‌ سلاح ضرورت طبیعی، قوانین انسانی و مناسبات شهروندی را هدف قرار دادند.‌ در این زمان باید تلاش بسیاری صورت میگرفت تا بار دیگر قوانین را بر پایه های محکمی نشاند. اما چه چیزی می توانست در برابر مفهوم ضرورت در طبیعت که حال به حوزه مناسبات انسانی نیز کشیده شده، ایستادگی کند؟ چگونه باز می توان از عدالت و شجاعت و خویشتن داری و به طور کلی ارزش ها سخن گفت ان هم زمانی که هر "باید"ی تبدیل به هست شده است؟ اینجاست که نظریه پیشرفت به کمک سقراط می آید.


چیزهای مدهش فراوانند ولی هیچ چیز به اندازه انسان دهشت آور نیست. این موجود در آن هنگام که بادهای طوفان زای جنوب می وزند، خود را به پهنه دریای نیلگون می افکند، قله های امواج خروشان را شکافته، راه خود را طی می‌کند. زمین را، این کهن ترین خدایان را، که همیشگی و تمام نشدنی است، هر سال کشت و غارت می کند و سال بعد با نژاد اسب ها شخم زده به آبش می گذارد. او در ترقی است، گاهی به سوی شر و گاهی هم به سوی خیر، یعنی آنگاه که قوانین شهر را به وجود می‌آورد و به فرامین عادلانه آسمانی ابراز وفاداری می‌کند و به شهروندی خویش افتخار می‌کند. اما انسانی که روح بی پروای او موجب شرارت شود یاغی و بی قانون است.


سوفکلس، انتیگونه به نقل از تاریخ فلسفه یونان، جلد ۱۰ صفحه
۱۴۸-۱۴۹

زمانی بود که انسان به صورت منزوی و در تاریکی و سرمای غارها روزگار می گذراند. او خوراک جانداران وحشی می شد و توان دفاع از خویش دربرابر ضرورت طبیعت را نداشت. طبق اساطیر، پرومته‌ بود که به یاری ادمی آمد و با بخشیدن اتش به او، جهان تاریکش را روشن ساخت. اما گویی به پرومته‌‌ای دیگر نیاز بود تا انسان ها را گرد هم آورد تا شهرهایی برپا کنند و با یاری دیگر دربرابر خشم طبیعت ایستادگی کنند. عقل، دومین هدیه پرومته به آدمیان بود. و همین پیشرفت انسان از تاریکی غارها به روشنایی پولیس، اب به آسیاب مشروعیت خردورزی و قوانین ناشی از آن می ریخت.

[Matthew Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

Death looms for Socrates but death is favourable to this 70-year-old man. Does he explain why? Yes, yes he does. Crito is not quite as good as the prior Apology but still wonderful. Socrates (Plato), I'm realising, is wonderful. The first "tetralogy" is almost done. I'll dabble around in some other dialogues before reading Republic. Then it's onto Aristotle.

[A Bookish ✧ Fable · Rating 4 out of 5]

A conversation between the death sentenced Sokrates & his friend Kritón.

Kritón wants to help Sokrates escape, but Sokrates tells him to sit down and answer his questions about if it is morally right to do so or not.
To put it shortly, the questions we are dealing with here is;
- Is it ok to be wrong to someone if they have been wrong to you first? -
&
- Should you never be wrong to somebody no matter what the circumstance may be? Or Is it okay in some cases (look above)-

My answer?: Well. If you truly know that doing someone wrong will help them and result in you having done them good, then I belive that you can still say 'It's never ok to do wrong to anyone.' Because if doing wrong will make it right in the end then that's really what matters, as long as it's right for the person/occasion, and not for your own selfish winning. As Sokrates said, life isn't about beeing alive, it's about Living. If you're helping the right people in the right way, in the long run, it's alright to do wrong once in a while. As long as it does no permanent harm (as mentioned in the writing) to the important part of the body: the mind.

Anyhow, I really did enjoy this follow up after'Sokrates Defense'

4,5/5 Stars

[Cynda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many consider this text problematic. Did Plato or his son write the text? The standard worldview of the time is not in place within this text. These are not problems that can be resolved. The issue of coming to an understanding must lie elsewhere. I propose that the rhetorical argument needs to be differently understood, understood from the perspective of a man preparing to die as soon as possible.

When Crito tells Socrates of how escape, to remember his children, to remember his friends, Socrates refuses to consider these arguments of Crito. We already know of Socrates' giving over to death


in Apology when he speaks
* of his being of an age when the time left is short anyway.
* of his being of the sort of character that asks too many questions to fit in elsewhere.

in Crito when he speaks
*of an agent of Death, a beautifully attired woman, already has appeared to Socrates to lure or welcome Socrates to his afterlife.
* of his friends being imposed upon.
* of his sons left orphans in strange lands.

Socrates simply is no longer interested in living. He has meet the beautifully attired agent of Death and has made an agreement to follow her lead or direction.


Once Socrates has presented his complete argument against Crito's argument for escaping the holding room in Athens, Socrates presents his case for staying to die. Among these arguments Socrates tells us of the authority of Athens

* to marry parents.
* to create a union that gave rise to Socrates.
* to provide Socrates with education.
* to provide Socrates with place pleasant enough to live his life in.
* to convict citizens.
* to ask those citizens what an appropriate punishment might be.
* to determine what sentence will be if no appropriate punishment is set out. Athens sentenced Socrates to die. And die he will.

When a person has faced Death, there is little going back. To face Death a second time just might be too much ask a human being to do.

I am reminded of what Anne Boleyn said to the Constable of the Tower of London. Upon hearing that the swordsman traveling from France had been delayed, Anne said:

Master Kingston, I hear say that I shall not die afore noon, and I am very sorry there for, for I thought to be dead by this time and past my pain.

Just bearing the awareness of imminent Death being a less imminent reality must take a spine of flexible steel and a mind at ease with itself. I think Socrates of Crito has these qualities. Socrates is prepared to die, and there is no going back.




Read as participation in the Plato study at the GR group Catching on the Classics. Next week we start a three (3)-week study of Phaedo.

[Laura Verret · Rating 2 out of 5]

So, Socrates is in prison and Crito comes and asks him to leave. (this is a fair request) They have a discussion over the justness of him escaping from his country's law, and Socrates wins. (raise your hand if you're surprised)

The one thing that I found interesting was that in the beginning Socrates stated that the opinion of the majority was not of any import - only the things that good people thought really mattered. Then half-way through the book he said that it would be wrong of him to escape from prison because (are you ready for it?) it was the will of the Athenians that he should be there. Like... isn't the 'will of the Athenians' a net calculation of the majority's wishes? I doubt whether the good people would have wanted to kill him, and if their opinion is all that matters....

*insert contemplative emoji*

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Der Kriton des Platon ist ein hoch interessanter Dialog über Ethik und Staatstheorie. Zeitlich knüpft der Kriton nahtlos an die Apologie an. Sokrates ist wegen Asebie zu Tode verurteilt und inhaftiert, seine Hinrichtung solle am nächsten oder übernächsten Tag stattfinden. Früh am Morgen bekommt er Besuch von seinem Freund und Anhäger Kriton. Dieser versucht ihn zu überreden aus dem Gefängnis zu flüchten, er würde Sokrates bei Verwandten in Thessaloniki unterbringen. Sokrates nützt dieses Gespräch (und seine inzwischen anhand anderer Dialoge bekannte Technik der Maieutik), um Kriton seine Beweggründe zu erläutern, warum er eine Flucht ablehne.

WIe in seiner Apologie lehnt Sokrates es ab, aus Anlassgründen seine Tugenden und seine Gesinnung zu verraten. Er meint, dass die Seele durch unrechtes (im Gegensatz zu seiner Gesinnung) stehenden Taten zerrütet würde, weshalb man seiner Gesinnung nicht entkommen könne, wolle man nicht etwas Schlimmeres riskieren als den Tod. So wie ein Sportler der Meinung von kundigen Ärzten folgen würde und nicht der seiner unwissenden Freunde, so richte sich der Mensch der Meinung der Tugendhaften und nicht der Masse (mit der Masse ist hier die Mehrheit der 281 Athener von den 500 genannt, die ihn zum verurteilt haben).

Falsch sei es jedenfalls nach seiner Gesinnung kategorisch, Unrechtes zu tun. Über das, was Unrecht ist dreht es sich nun in der zweiten Hälfte des Gesprächs. Unrecht sei es, wenn jemand geschädigt werde. Und Sokrates lässt nun die Gesetze selbst zu Wort kommen und erläutert, was diese wohl im Falle seiner Flucht zu ihm sagen würden. Und hier schweift Sokrates in die Staatstheorie ab. Die Gesetze würden ihn verurteilen, da er, indem er die Gesetze bräche, die staatliche Gemeinschaft schaden würde. Ohne dass die Gesetze respektiert würden, so würde das staatliche Gemeinwesen nicht lebensfähig sein. In der folgenden Begründung schließt Sokrates auch an seine Gefallenenrede im Menexenos an, so sei es der funktionierende Staat, der seinen Eltern die Zeugung Sokrates ermöglicht habe, ebenso sei er durch den Staat gut erzogen worden. Würde er sich nun selbst über das Gerichtsurteil stellen, dann würde er die Staatsordnung und damit den funktionierenden Staat infrage stellen, für den er selbst ja sein Leben lang eingetreten ist, indem er mit seinen Gesprächen die Menschen zu tugendhaften Staatsbürgern erziehen wollte.

Schließlich gibt Kriton auf und akzeptiert die Argumente des Sokrates, und er, Sokrates, wegen Asebie verurteilt, legt sein Schicksal in die Hände der Götter.

————————————

Der Kriton ist von den von mir bislang gelesenen Texten Platons wahrscheinlich jener, der von seiner Bedeutung auch 2400 Jahre später nichts eingebüßt hat. Die Frage, ob man kritiklos den Gesetzen des Staates unterordnen soll oder nicht, selbst wenn dieser offensichtlich ein Unrechtsstaat ist (wie es ja auch Athen mit der Herrschaft der Dreißig kurz vor dem Tod des Sokrates kurzzeitig war), ist heute sowohl theoretisch als auch praktisch angesichts totalitäter Staaten aktuell.

Der Text lädt jedenfalls eingehend zu einer Reflexion über den Sinn von Gesetzen und das Staatswesen auch in demokratischen Staaten ein. Insofern ist es in den bis dato von mir gelesenen Texten von Platon sicherlich der wichtigste, eine Lektüre des kurzen Textes sei jedem ausdrücklich empfohlen.

[Tülay Tellioğlu · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5
Platon hepimizin bildiği üzere çok ünlü ve önemli bir filozof. Haliyle yazdığı kitaplar da felsefi bakış açıları ile yazılmış çok derin ve anlamlı kitaplar. Yani en azından ben öyle tahmin ediyorum. 😅Benim ise felsefe kitaplarını okumaya karşı ilgim sıfıra yakın iken Can yayınlarının kısa klasikler serisi sayesinde bir cesaret ile okudum. Yani evet, Platon’u ilk kez okuyorum ve gerçekten de beğendim. Fakat uzun soluklu kitaplarını yine aynı hevesle okuyabilir miyim hala emin değilim. Mesela Devlet kitabını okumayı hep çok istemişimdir fakat okuyacak cesareti kendimde asla bulamıyorum. 😅
En azından başlangıcı yaptım diyebilirim. Hem de ne başlangıç! Platon kendisine verilen cezanın haklılığını o kadar mantıklı ve adaletli temellere dayandırıyor ki hakikaten cezayı hak etmiş ne hali varsa görsün diyesiniz gelir. Fakat bir yandan da kendi cezası hakkında bu kadar objektif oluşu Platon adına derin bir pişmanlık hissi ile dolmanıza sebep oluyor. Sizi hem şaşırtıp hem de pişman edebilecek duygu dalgalanmaları yaşatan müthiş bir bakış açısı ile yazılmış. Mutlaka okumanızı tavsiye ederim. 😊

[Uğur Karabürk · Rating 5 out of 5]

serinin ikinci kitabıydı yine çok beğendim erdem ve kararlılık üzerine bir metindi

[Andrei Vasilachi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crito(n) îi oferă lui Socrate șansa să evadeze din închisoare (după ce fusese condamnat la moarte de către senatul Atenei pentru “nepocăință și coruperea tineretului”), și deși în dialogul “Apologia” Socrate și-a prezentat argumentele care pledau pentru nevinovăție, el totuși refuză oferta lui Crito, acceptându-și moartea.

În acest dialog avem două argumente principale de-ale lui Socrate:

Argumentul #1 - Trebuie să asculți voința statului (polisului), chiar dacă o percepi ca o injustiție din punct de vedere personal, deoarece ești îndatorat lui că te-a crescut și educat (o viziune specifică Atenienilor de atunci).

Argumentul #2 - Opinia maselor nu contează atât de mult ca opinia unui singur om care cunoaște ce-i aia Justiția sau Adevărul.

Aici eu totuși văd două probleme principale care apar din aceste argumente:

1) Există un pericol în a echivala Justiția cu statul (Justiția e capitalizată pentru a accentua Ideea Platonică; justiția “perfectă”).

2) În democrațiile imperfecte opinia maselor adesea dictează justiția în stat.

Aici avem o posibilă contradicție în ideile lui Socrate. Democrațiile au tendința să devină disfuncționale (Platon a vorbit extensiv despre asta în Republica), și în asemenea democrații Justiția e ghidată de opinia maselor (sau interesele personale ale conducătorilor, care se hrănesc din naivitatea maselor). Reiese că să te simți dator unui asemenea stat nu e un lucru just, întrucât prin asociere asculți opinia maselor sau te lași ghidat de interesele meschine ale unui rege / conducător / politician.

În același timp alegerea lui Socrate de a-și întâmpina moartea, fără a se împotrivi prea mult, l-a cimentat în istorie ca arhetipul omului nobil care e acuzat pe nedreptate și e condamnat la moarte de societate și stat. Când spunem despre cineva că “a fost condamnat ca Socrate”, înțelegem implicit ce se are în vedere.

Mai există și teoria că Socrate, fiind la anii săi 70, pur și simplu obosise și nu mai avea chef să lupte (și, în caz că evada, să fugă tot restul vieții de statul Atenian). Nu știu cât de probabilă e această teorie, dar în dialog există niște fraze care denotă resemnarea filosofului.

Crito e un dialog care fie îi va inspira pe cei care sunt creativi în a justifica loialitatea față de stat (văzându-l ca executorul Legii), fie va provoca spiritele mai anarhice care vor vedea în argumentele lui Socrate o încăpățânare nejustificată și o lipsă de pragmatism (specific lui Machiavelli), sau fie va crea sentimente mixte, cum e în cazul meu.

[Viji (Bookish endeavors) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly a marvel.!!

My first reading of Plato.. And of Socrates.. I feel like a kid,excited at having got the book I've always wanted to have,humbled by the great mind.. The text I read,translation though it was,was beautiful in its style,use of words and the unquestionable logic of the master. Does it look like I'm keeping Socrates on a pedestal.? Well.. I truly am..

I was struck by the beauty of the logic,the way he tackles Crito's arguments.. it must feel strange when I say that I was more influenced by the structure than the content.. but it is true..the structure and the ease with which one argument flows from another is simply amazing..

A few words about the text..

Socrates doesn't leave a single point unanswered. He shows the fallacy in Crito's reasoning and logically proves the rightness of his decision.
Crito asks Socrates to consider escaping from the prison stating the following reasons:
1)Socrates fails in his duty as a father.
2) if Socrates dies,then the people will blame his friends saying that they didn't show courage to save him.
3)Socrates would be doing injustice to himself by walking into death when there was an option to escape.
Socrates answers each of these points as follows:
1)justice comes first,not children.
2)the good ones will understand the truth,it is not necessary to convince the rest.
3)Socrates was born and educated by the State. He never left the state and begot his children there. Had he ever felt any uneasiness with the law and the administration,he could have shifted to some other state taking his belongings and that he didn't do for the 70 years of his life. To do so just to extend his life for a short while wouldn't be good. So he would be doing a greater injustice by escaping.
Socrates says that it is not the laws but the men who kill him. He seems to have immense respect for laws.

To the reader..
This is not a text to be taken lightly,light though it might seem in quantity and in language(which depends upon the translation you have,luckily I got a beautiful one).. Tread through the words with your third eye open.. You never know what he might have meant in between the lines.. I take this text as a masterpiece in language,philosophy and logic.. a second reading might bring into light another dimension..
HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED.

[Rissa (rissasreading) · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.7 - I wonder if he'd feel the same under the Trump Administration y'know?

I find this one interesting in the context of what is currently going on today as I read this. This talks about respecting the law because of the lawmakers and the role we as people have to said law and the state that provides/created those laws. Although right now even in a society governed heavily by laws and policies it is a rather lawless society where many people are doing things and behaving in ways that I think should result in the imprisonment Socrates faces in Crito, but they just don't.... I guess this work serves it's purpose for me in the sense that I'm questioning the laws we have and how much we should respect those when they don't work in favor of us, much like what happens to Socrates.

[Idontknow · Rating 5 out of 5]

"They [the masses] would give life as readily as take it away, were it in their power; with as little understanding in each action".

If this is their justice, which is truly the most benevolent?

[Dylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic little short and a tragic one. Socrates rationalises why he shouldn't escape from prison.

[Martín · Rating 2 out of 5]

Inventó el fascismo

[Homo Sentimentalis · Rating 2 out of 5]

U "Kritonu" su zakotrljana neka od osnovnih pitanja političke filozofije, a to su: Da li mi postojimo radi države ili je država tu radi nas? Gdje prestaje država, a gdje počinju prava građana? Imaju li građani pravo na pobunu ili moraju slijepo i bezgranično poštovati volju svojih vlastodržaca? Iako se nijedno od ovih pitanja u ovom djelu ne postavlja direktno, Sokrat je na sve njih jasno odgovorio:

"Zar je tvoja mudrost takva da ne znaš da je i od majke, i od oca, i od svih ostalih predaka otadžbina časnija, i uzvišenija, i svetlija, i u većoj počasti i kod bogova i kod svih ljudi koji pameti imaju, i da otadžbinu treba više poštovati, i ako se ljuti, više joj ustupati i ljubaznije joj progovarati nego ocu, i da je treba ili uveravati o boljem ili vršiti ono što ona zapoveda, a i trpeti ako što naređuje da se trpi - bez protivljenja, i ako naređuje i da te biju, i da te u tamnicu bacaju, i ako te goni u rat da budeš tamo ranjen ili da pogineš? Sve se to mora činiti, i tako je pravo: ne smeš popuštati ni uzmicati, ni svoj borbeni red ostavljati, nego i u ratu, i pred sudom, i svuda treba raditi ono što država i otadžbina zapovedaju, ili uveravati je o onom što pravda zahteva? A praviti nasilje nije dopušteno ni prema ocu ni prema majci, a kudikamo manje prema otadžbini!"

Jbt, kad ovo čitam više mi liči na neki Staljinov proglas sovjetskom narodu iz tridesetih ili četrdesetih godina, nego na filozofski citat. Dajem sebi za pravo da se u tom nekom sokratovsko-staljinističkom duhu logički nadovežem na ovaj citat: "Ako si isprobao na novinama da li ti radi hemijska olovka i slučajno malo prešao i po Staljinovom liku, zatim novine bacio u kantu za smeće, iz koje su ih komšije izvadile, otvorile ih, vidjele šta si uradio, prijavile te i ti zbog toga od druga Staljina dobio 25 godina teškog robijanja u Sibiru i još imao sreće što te nisu streljali (istinita priča), a ti nemoj pokušavati bježati, niti se buniti, jer praviti nasilje nije dopušteno ni prema ocu ni prema majci, a kudikamo prema otadžbini!"

[Rambling Raconteur · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://youtu.be/sZVm46zJQlg?si=p7MbT...

[B. P. Rinehart · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm reading this as a part of The Trial and Death of Socrates as reprinted in the Classics of Western Philosophy. Translated by G.M.A. Grube.

This book is sort of like The Republic-lite. It is a towering example of political philosophy though it is short and somewhat controversial. This book has the titular character coming to bust Socrates out of prison. He soon discovers that at this point Socrates does not plan on leaving but is intent on validating himself by doing whatever the state commands of him. He also makes very good reasoning that he should not do wrong even if others do wrong to him.

He does very good reasoning on why it is the right thing to stay and obey the law and you are almost ready to agree with him the whole way until the last two paragraphs and than we see why this is one of Plato's more controversial dialogues. He advocates that the state comes before everything, even love-ones. I know I may be not doing this justice but it is a very interesting dialogue, to say the least

I must admit though he does not say much, I can't help but feel sorry for Crito and Socrates' other friends. They do really seem to care about Socrates despite his coldness to their feelings.

"Crito: I have nothing to say, Socrates.
Socrates: Let it be then, Crito, and let us act in this way since this is the way the god is leading us."

[Genni]

Again, We don't read Plato for answers. We read him to ask the right questions.

The question arising as Socrates sits in prison, condemned to die, is, "Do I surrender to democracy's judgement and die willingly? Or do I fight the ruling, declaring myself right, and fight for my life?" Ok. That is two questions. Socrates generally comes to the conclusion that he has reaped the benefits of living in a democracy his entire life. Now that it is against him, how can he reject the ruling? I think it is a moot point to wonder if he would have given a different answer had he been younger.

Short, interesting read.

[Hinch]

Socrates is in prison, awaiting his imminent death - the outcome of his trial, as recounted in Apology. His friend Crito pays a last-minute visit in a last-ditch effort to persuade Socrates to let his friends help him to escape. Socrates and Crito discuss law and obedience to the state.

Is it just for Socrates to defy the judgement of the city and attempt an escape? In more general terms the central question of Crito can be summed as, ‘it ever right to disobey the state?’

Via Socrates’s argument for why he should abide by the judgements of the state even unto death, Plato outlines what is going to become known as social contract theory.

Socrates has been raised and educated by the city, he has enjoyed the bounty of its successes. In continuing to live in the city (Plato’s Crito is the apparent origin of the ‘if you don’t like it, leave’ line of thinking) after becoming a man and becoming aware of the city’s laws and system of justice, Socrates has implicitly entered into an agreement with the city that he will abide by its judgements. It would be not only hypocritical of him, but also positively unjust to accept the city’s judgements regarding justice when it benefits him, i.e in the whole rest of his life up until his trial, but to reject them when they harm him.

In the same way that one should honour the judgement of one’s parents, who take on the burden of raising a person, Socrates thinks we should honour the final judgements of the city even if we disagree with them; to attempt violence against the state is not only the breaking of an agreement, but is the equivalent action to doing violence unto one’s parents or teachers.

So Socrates accepts his death, saying that the just thing is to obey the state’s final judgements. It is better to die consistently in accordance with the demands of justice than to live a life preserved by injustice.

What is interesting here is that Socrates concludes that it is just to obey/follow-the-judgements-of the state where the state has decreed unjustly, and unjust to disobey an unjust judgement. This is to be consistent, in order to avoid undermining the state’s authority, without which there would not be a firm foundation for the terms of the social contract to exist on.

This is not to say that a person can’t argue against the state. Socrates says we have two choices when faced with the state’s judgements - either to obey, or to try to persuade the state to change its judgement. But if we do not succeed in persuading the state that its judgement is actually unjust rather than just, we have to accept its final decision. So the implicit agreement between citizen and state which allows government and civic society to exist does include consideration of the individual’s capacity for reason.

However, I would argue that this is more a measure of the individual’s capacity for rhetoric/argumentation, not rigorous philosophical reasoning. I also don’t see how a state/system of law which is not guided by reason can ever be trusted in its judgements in the first place. Crito is too short, and its narrative/dramatic framing/scope too narrow, to deal with these issues, which Socrates does in fact raise in other dialogues.

It is worth taking into account that the state to which Socrates is considering a potential right to disobey is a direct democracy of only maybe ten-thousand citizens, not a kafkaesque liberal-bureaucratic nightmare or totalitarian dictatorship.

Socrates’s and Crito’s arguments have been described as ‘interestingly bad.’ I am not certain if they are good or bad (Though I am heavily leaning towards ‘bad’), but they’re definitely interesting