What do you think?
Rate this book
Defence of Socrates/Euthyphro/Crito
These new translations of the Defence of Socrates, the Euthyphro, and the Crito present Plato's remarkable dramatizations of the momentous events surrounding the trial of Socrates in 399 BC, on charges of irreligion and corrupting the young. They form a dramatic and thematic sequence, raising fundamental questions about the basis of moral, religious, legal, and political obligation. The Introduction provides a stimulating philosophical and historical analysis of these texts, complemented by useful explanatory notes and an index of names.
119 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 396
About the author
Plato
5,847 books9,167 followersPlato (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."
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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
January 8, 2024
škoda, že Platon nemohl mít yt channel
February 6, 2021
Euthyphro 4 - good introduction into Socratesian style of reasoning; it’s kinda goals to be so annoying that when you argue with sb, they have to excuse themselves with some „urgent matter” cause they can’t possibly win the argument with you
Apology 5 - just brilliant
Crito 3 - here Socrates is a bit too moralistic for my taste and I feel bad for Crito, he is a really good friend
Apology 5 - just brilliant
Crito 3 - here Socrates is a bit too moralistic for my taste and I feel bad for Crito, he is a really good friend
August 15, 2016
Queria fazer esta review de forma diferente, começando por partilhar uma conversa que tive há dias com uma amiga sobre a morte e a experiência de morrer para, então, poder estabelecer uma relação com a obra e deixar algumas questões no ar. Sucede, porém, que quanto mais me adiantei na minha tentativa de o fazer, mais me fui afastando do tema central do livro e daquilo que tinha inicialmente pensado, de modo que acabou por perder o sentido. Assim sendo, e como o desânimo levou consigo a já não muita imaginação que restava, deixo apenas uma breve avaliação de cada uma das partes que constituem este livro acompanhada por um pequeno comentário final.
Êutifron: 3/5
Apologia de Sócrates: 5/5
Críton: 4/5
A defesa de Sócrates na Apologia de Sócrates é fenomenal. Não me refiro só à lógica ou à coerência do raciocínio, mas à força do discurso, ao seu estado de aceitação (à falta de melhor termo) face à morte. Um monumento literário que qualquer um de nós, inevitáveis mortais, devia ler. Terminando,
Êutifron: 3/5
Apologia de Sócrates: 5/5
Críton: 4/5
A defesa de Sócrates na Apologia de Sócrates é fenomenal. Não me refiro só à lógica ou à coerência do raciocínio, mas à força do discurso, ao seu estado de aceitação (à falta de melhor termo) face à morte. Um monumento literário que qualquer um de nós, inevitáveis mortais, devia ler. Terminando,
...são horas de nos separarmos, eu, para morrer, e vós, para viver.
January 30, 2025
Favorite detail from this is that Socrates’ plea to not be sentenced to death actually makes everyone want him to die more
January 21, 2021
Greșesc oare încadrând volumul de față printre tragediile antice? Deloc exclus. Important este că nu am indolența să fiu sigur de asta. Cele trei dialoguri rămân, totuși, după mine, trei acte ale unei piese dramatice având ca obiect condamnarea lui Socrate (înainte, în timpul și după aceasta). Fie intenționat, fie accidental (variantă mai plauzibilă), măiestria literară a lui Platon reiese din această orânduire; poate mai puțin din alăturarea textelor sub aceeași copertă, însă enorm din încadrarea scenică și iscusința literar-estetică ale scrierilor care plasează căutarea sinelui întru virtute undeva sus (dacă nu în paradis, cel puțin ceva mai sus de aici). Pe deasupra, introducerea realizată de C. Noica nu face decât să sculpteze individualul lui Platon, pe care trebuie că l-a avut, chiar și el, urmărind o demitizare a legendarului vag, însă una blândă, desăvârșită cu mănușile și ochiul unui bijutier. În rest, liniile de dialog comunică fără ajutorul meu, astfel că tot ce îmi mai permit să adaug timid: un izvor.
January 30, 2025
Writing this late at night, so apologies for any disorganization or errors.
An amazing compilation of some of Plato's most important dialogues. I went in expecting an overhyped, hard-to-understand, word vomit of philosophy but found myself emotional by the end. This was my first time delving into ancient greek culture through something other than an epic and I think it's a must-read for anyone remotely interested in the "why's" of life.
Honestly, if Socrates was alive today I would probably find him as annoying as all of Athens did. However, the questions he asks of his students and all Athenians are ones whose importance is hard to describe.
From how Plato portrayed him, Socrates was truly the wisest of his time as Pythia claimed. While I certainly don't agree with everything he said, his everlasting commitment to his principles is an attribute I think everyone should strive to have. I hope he's resting in peace with Hesiod and Homer as he wished to be.
An amazing compilation of some of Plato's most important dialogues. I went in expecting an overhyped, hard-to-understand, word vomit of philosophy but found myself emotional by the end. This was my first time delving into ancient greek culture through something other than an epic and I think it's a must-read for anyone remotely interested in the "why's" of life.
Honestly, if Socrates was alive today I would probably find him as annoying as all of Athens did. However, the questions he asks of his students and all Athenians are ones whose importance is hard to describe.
From how Plato portrayed him, Socrates was truly the wisest of his time as Pythia claimed. While I certainly don't agree with everything he said, his everlasting commitment to his principles is an attribute I think everyone should strive to have. I hope he's resting in peace with Hesiod and Homer as he wished to be.
February 25, 2025
really good dialogues
euthyphro: socrates read euthyphro to high heaven and back on what it means for something to be holy, in the end euthyphro had to flee and tbf i would too if i had just been eaten up like that #embarassing
apology: sad times for socrates as the ops close in, despite his valiant effort, the ops proved too persuasive and the brodem of athens too brainwashed #ripsocrates #3mybro
crito: although socrates failed to #busscase he accepted this with grace and nothing crito could say could stop that. this one was real af and the only one i hadnt read before but i really enjoyed it.
euthyphro: socrates read euthyphro to high heaven and back on what it means for something to be holy, in the end euthyphro had to flee and tbf i would too if i had just been eaten up like that #embarassing
apology: sad times for socrates as the ops close in, despite his valiant effort, the ops proved too persuasive and the brodem of athens too brainwashed #ripsocrates #3mybro
crito: although socrates failed to #busscase he accepted this with grace and nothing crito could say could stop that. this one was real af and the only one i hadnt read before but i really enjoyed it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 17, 2021
Rating: all the stars
3 different works about Socrates that will make you think and ponder and most of all, that will haunt you.
In Euthypro the concept of holiness was introduced to show you that in the end, holiness means nothing more than a purified state of mind. In short, the holy person is the philosopher.
In Defence of Socrates, during his trial, Socrates tried to seek the truth by honest argument. He definitely came across as a beacon of intellectual liberty.
In Crito, Socrates refused to escape for the action itself would not have been… just. The Law would not have allowed it. But the refusal… was in contradiction with him acting as a beacon during his trial?
Still pondering, still arguing with myself.
Oh, my rating? All the stars.
I apologise for the brief commentary, but I am of the opinion that Plato does not need another review. *winks*
"Is it for the sake of your children that you want to live, so that you
can raise and educate them? What are you going do, in that case? You'll raise and educate them by bringing them to Thessaly and making them outsiders, so that they will enjoy that benefit too? Or if not that, will they grow up better if they are raised and educated with you alive but away
from them, because your friends will take care of them? Is it that if you go to Thessaly, they'll look after them, but if you go to Hades they won't? If those who claim to be your friends are any good, you must believe they will."
3 different works about Socrates that will make you think and ponder and most of all, that will haunt you.
In Euthypro the concept of holiness was introduced to show you that in the end, holiness means nothing more than a purified state of mind. In short, the holy person is the philosopher.
In Defence of Socrates, during his trial, Socrates tried to seek the truth by honest argument. He definitely came across as a beacon of intellectual liberty.
In Crito, Socrates refused to escape for the action itself would not have been… just. The Law would not have allowed it. But the refusal… was in contradiction with him acting as a beacon during his trial?
Still pondering, still arguing with myself.
Oh, my rating? All the stars.
I apologise for the brief commentary, but I am of the opinion that Plato does not need another review. *winks*
April 21, 2021
Como primeira introdução à bibliografia de Platão não poderia ter pedido melhor que este conjunto de obras que abordam o julgamento de Sócrates. A filosofia esperava-se; o que surpreende é as capacidades de escritor de Platão, ainda bem palpáveis passados dois mil e trezentos anos da sua morte, e que dão um brilho particular a estes relatos do seu mentor, Sócrates. E, talvez mais surpreendente ainda, são textos de leitura bastante fácil, pelo menos nesta tradução.
Tanto Êutifron como a Apologia são fantásticas. Por um lado, a figura de Sócrates, a história da injustiça do seu julgamento, conforme contada por Platão (presente sobretudo na Apologia); por outro as ideias avançadas no texto, cujas ramificações se sentem até aos dias de hoje (em Êutifron, o desenvolvimento do famoso dilema de Êutifron - A piedade é amada pelos deuses porque é piedade, ou é piedade porque é amada pelos deuses? - e na Apologia, o paradoxo socrático - Só sei que nada sei.)
Se não fosse o Críton, que me pareceu inferior, facilmente daria cinco estrelas a esta coletânea. Ainda assim, hei-de de revisitar os dois primeiros textos.
Tanto Êutifron como a Apologia são fantásticas. Por um lado, a figura de Sócrates, a história da injustiça do seu julgamento, conforme contada por Platão (presente sobretudo na Apologia); por outro as ideias avançadas no texto, cujas ramificações se sentem até aos dias de hoje (em Êutifron, o desenvolvimento do famoso dilema de Êutifron - A piedade é amada pelos deuses porque é piedade, ou é piedade porque é amada pelos deuses? - e na Apologia, o paradoxo socrático - Só sei que nada sei.)
Se não fosse o Críton, que me pareceu inferior, facilmente daria cinco estrelas a esta coletânea. Ainda assim, hei-de de revisitar os dois primeiros textos.
November 24, 2020
Socrate era “de coccio” (means: testardo)
July 25, 2026
No “Êutifron”, Sócrates discute com o interlocutor homónimo “que espécie de coisa é a piedade e a impiedade” (Pl. Euthphr. 5d). Num debate que acaba por se revelar uma espiral concêntrica, o filósofo põe em evidência a dificuldade, comummente menosprezada, da definição de τὸ ὅσιον — aquilo que é puro, moralmente bom, aprovado aos olhos dos deuses. Este diálogo foi celebrizado pela formulação da questão “A piedade é amada pelos deuses, porque é piedade, ou é piedade, porque é amada pelos deuses?” (Pl. Euthphr. 10a), cuja influência se estendeu ao teísmo filosófico e às conceções objetivista e voluntarista da moralidade. No entanto, é enquanto porta de entrada para o julgamento socrático que, presentemente, assume uma posição de relevo. Em primeiro lugar, por sublinhar a insuficiência do intelecto humano para a definição da natureza das ações morais. Sem uma noção cristalina da diferença fundamental entre o bem e o mal, entre o nobre e o reprovável, como pode um tribunal condenar um indivíduo à morte? Será mais aprazível aos deuses a ação perpetrada pelo acusado ou a interrupção forçada do seu curso de vida? Será sequer possível que uma ação seja aprazível a todos os deuses, em simultâneo? Ausentes deste debate e alheios à sua importância, os responsáveis pela condenação do filósofo creem-se na posse da medida indiscutível da moralidade. Em segundo lugar, por terminar com a saída apressada do interrogado, nitidamente incomodado pela insistência de Sócrates e frustrado face ao desmoronamento de crenças que ele julgava inabaláveis e que, no final de contas, nem sequer consegue definir. O desconforto de Êutifron é o mesmo que move os atenienses que “não pude[ram] suportar as […] discussões e argumentos […] pesadas e irritantes” (Pl. Ap. 37c) do filósofo e que, por isso, menosprezam a sua intenção de os “acord[ar], conven[cer] e exort[ar]” (Pl. Ap. 30e) a buscarem o verdadeiro conhecimento. Como se de um verdadeiro “moscardo” (Pl. Ap. 30e) se tratasse, tentam, em vão, enxotá-lo e acabam por esmagá-lo na inocência da sua natureza.
A influência aristofânica no processo socrático é especialmente evidente na “Apologia de Sócrates”, diálogo que se desenrola, na sua totalidade, já no interior do tribunal. A ideia generalizada de que Sócrates se recusava a adorar os deuses da cidade, incitando a crença em novas divindades, pode ser traçada desde a insistência de Sócrates, enquanto pessoa do drama, na desacreditação da fé tradicional perante os seus discípulos. É condição essencial para a inclusão de Estrepsíades na sua escola que este renuncie à fé ateniense e que, em vez de acreditar nesta, acredite «no espaço imenso, nas Nuvens, na Língua eloquente»(Ar. Nu. 42, tradução nossa). Era, além disso, visto com desconfiança que Sócrates se referisse, com frequência, ao seu “costumeiro oráculo divino” (Pl. Ap. 40a), um mensageiro espiritual, uma voz que o guiava em todas as suas ações — um daemon, eco de Hesíodo, resgatado em Goethe. Uma segunda acusação agrava a primeira: a corrupção dos jovens, incitados a reproduzir a prática do seu mestre. Terá contribuído para a apreensão do público o resultado da educação socrática de Fidípides n’”As Nuvens”: a capacidade de manipular o discurso argumentativo por forma a que uma agressão ao seu próprio pai parecesse, a quem o ouvisse, necessariamente justa. A corrupção da juventude ateniense por via do ensino voluntário e sistemático é, para Sócrates, impossível na sua génese, já que não se crê suficientemente sábio para assumir a função social de um mestre. É, aliás, neste diálogo que o filósofo afirma repetidamente a consciência da ignorância que, ainda hoje, se associa à sua figura: “é possível que nenhum de nós saiba nada do que é bom e belo, mas, enquanto ele julga saber algo, eu, como nada sei, nada julgo saber. E nisto parece-me que sou um pouco mais sábio que ele, por não julgar saber as coisas que não sei.” (Pl. Ap. 21d).
Apesar dos seus esforços argumentativos, Sócrates é condenado, superando-o o poder social do receio e do boato. Contudo, em vez de implorar por misericórdia ou de expressar temor face à morte, o filósofo procede com a serenidade e clareza de espírito notabilizadas no “Críton” e no “Fédon”. Quando, no primeiro, lhe é oferecida a possibilidade de fugir de Atenas, escapando à sua pena, Sócrates recusa-a, plácido, certo de que “cometer injustiça é de toda a maneira vergonhoso e iníquo para quem a comete” (Pl. Cri. 49b). É, portanto, sempre preferível ser a sua vítima do que o seu perpetrador. No segundo, escrito consideravelmente mais tarde do que os três diálogos anteriormente referidos, o filósofo reitera a insensatez daqueles que encaram a morte com angústia, como já enunciara na “Apologia”: “temer a morte […] não é mais do que julgar ser sábio sem o ser, porque é julgar saber o que se não sabe. Pois ninguém sabe o que é a morte […], mas temem-na como se soubessem que era o maior dos males” (Pl. Ap. 29a). Sócrates considera o corpo um recipiente temporário da alma, que o supera na imensidão do tempo, pois é, por natureza, imortal. Por isso, tendo vivido “de relações cortadas com o corpo” (Pl. Phd. 67e), para que a sua “alma se mant[ivesse] em si e por si mesma” (Pl. Phd. 67e), nada tem a recear face ao término de um mero estádio terreno da existência.
A influência aristofânica no processo socrático é especialmente evidente na “Apologia de Sócrates”, diálogo que se desenrola, na sua totalidade, já no interior do tribunal. A ideia generalizada de que Sócrates se recusava a adorar os deuses da cidade, incitando a crença em novas divindades, pode ser traçada desde a insistência de Sócrates, enquanto pessoa do drama, na desacreditação da fé tradicional perante os seus discípulos. É condição essencial para a inclusão de Estrepsíades na sua escola que este renuncie à fé ateniense e que, em vez de acreditar nesta, acredite «no espaço imenso, nas Nuvens, na Língua eloquente»(Ar. Nu. 42, tradução nossa). Era, além disso, visto com desconfiança que Sócrates se referisse, com frequência, ao seu “costumeiro oráculo divino” (Pl. Ap. 40a), um mensageiro espiritual, uma voz que o guiava em todas as suas ações — um daemon, eco de Hesíodo, resgatado em Goethe. Uma segunda acusação agrava a primeira: a corrupção dos jovens, incitados a reproduzir a prática do seu mestre. Terá contribuído para a apreensão do público o resultado da educação socrática de Fidípides n’”As Nuvens”: a capacidade de manipular o discurso argumentativo por forma a que uma agressão ao seu próprio pai parecesse, a quem o ouvisse, necessariamente justa. A corrupção da juventude ateniense por via do ensino voluntário e sistemático é, para Sócrates, impossível na sua génese, já que não se crê suficientemente sábio para assumir a função social de um mestre. É, aliás, neste diálogo que o filósofo afirma repetidamente a consciência da ignorância que, ainda hoje, se associa à sua figura: “é possível que nenhum de nós saiba nada do que é bom e belo, mas, enquanto ele julga saber algo, eu, como nada sei, nada julgo saber. E nisto parece-me que sou um pouco mais sábio que ele, por não julgar saber as coisas que não sei.” (Pl. Ap. 21d).
Apesar dos seus esforços argumentativos, Sócrates é condenado, superando-o o poder social do receio e do boato. Contudo, em vez de implorar por misericórdia ou de expressar temor face à morte, o filósofo procede com a serenidade e clareza de espírito notabilizadas no “Críton” e no “Fédon”. Quando, no primeiro, lhe é oferecida a possibilidade de fugir de Atenas, escapando à sua pena, Sócrates recusa-a, plácido, certo de que “cometer injustiça é de toda a maneira vergonhoso e iníquo para quem a comete” (Pl. Cri. 49b). É, portanto, sempre preferível ser a sua vítima do que o seu perpetrador. No segundo, escrito consideravelmente mais tarde do que os três diálogos anteriormente referidos, o filósofo reitera a insensatez daqueles que encaram a morte com angústia, como já enunciara na “Apologia”: “temer a morte […] não é mais do que julgar ser sábio sem o ser, porque é julgar saber o que se não sabe. Pois ninguém sabe o que é a morte […], mas temem-na como se soubessem que era o maior dos males” (Pl. Ap. 29a). Sócrates considera o corpo um recipiente temporário da alma, que o supera na imensidão do tempo, pois é, por natureza, imortal. Por isso, tendo vivido “de relações cortadas com o corpo” (Pl. Phd. 67e), para que a sua “alma se mant[ivesse] em si e por si mesma” (Pl. Phd. 67e), nada tem a recear face ao término de um mero estádio terreno da existência.
July 26, 2025
Socrates wisest of us all, who claims to know least of all. The medium of dialogue becomes kind of boring when Socrates' interlocutor just blindly appeases whatever he has to say. I've adopted the Socratic style of questioning whenever I speak to my girlfriend and I don't think she's a fan.
Crito - Socrates puts too much faith in the justice and structure of Athenian society, saying Socrates had 70 years to leave Athens, which he didn't, therefore he should be subjugated by The Laws makes a strong assumption that political life and Laws have stayed static all that time. To further justify, claiming he has scarcely traveled, past the duties of war, is also ridiculous since Socrates asserts in his defense that he was without money and so did not seem to have the means to travel if he wanted to... Nice remark that we only fear death out of ignorance for what it brings, maybe it is the greatest gift of all, we can only hope.
Defence - If I ever found myself on trial I could only hope to give a testimony so goated.
Euthyphro - The roundaboutness of Euthyphro's arguments leads me to think of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, maybe there's some part of divinity we need to take in faith (haha), and also maybe the essence of divinity isn't binary but rather some continuity of flavors for the divine. Who knows, certainly not me, or Socrates.
Crito - Socrates puts too much faith in the justice and structure of Athenian society, saying Socrates had 70 years to leave Athens, which he didn't, therefore he should be subjugated by The Laws makes a strong assumption that political life and Laws have stayed static all that time. To further justify, claiming he has scarcely traveled, past the duties of war, is also ridiculous since Socrates asserts in his defense that he was without money and so did not seem to have the means to travel if he wanted to... Nice remark that we only fear death out of ignorance for what it brings, maybe it is the greatest gift of all, we can only hope.
Defence - If I ever found myself on trial I could only hope to give a testimony so goated.
Euthyphro - The roundaboutness of Euthyphro's arguments leads me to think of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, maybe there's some part of divinity we need to take in faith (haha), and also maybe the essence of divinity isn't binary but rather some continuity of flavors for the divine. Who knows, certainly not me, or Socrates.
September 26, 2024
An interesting book regarding the idea of 'knowing' and 'morality'.
I thought the best out of these three was 'Crito' where Socrates has the means of escape, but argues with Crito about the morality behind escape, and principles.
It's odd to read this in a 'post-principled' world, where 'I' is more important than 'us'.
What do we owe our nation and community, and what does it owe us? Should we be subjected to laws even if we don't like them? Do we have the opportunity to leave our country for one where we find 'the laws' more acceptable to our morality (does such a place exist)? How does technology play in with these ideas, where 'nationhood' is now fluid and borders are dissolving?
All questions raised in this book. A good read, and lots to learn - the more I read of the ancients, the more I wonder if we aren't regressing as a race...
I thought the best out of these three was 'Crito' where Socrates has the means of escape, but argues with Crito about the morality behind escape, and principles.
It's odd to read this in a 'post-principled' world, where 'I' is more important than 'us'.
What do we owe our nation and community, and what does it owe us? Should we be subjected to laws even if we don't like them? Do we have the opportunity to leave our country for one where we find 'the laws' more acceptable to our morality (does such a place exist)? How does technology play in with these ideas, where 'nationhood' is now fluid and borders are dissolving?
All questions raised in this book. A good read, and lots to learn - the more I read of the ancients, the more I wonder if we aren't regressing as a race...
May 23, 2019
Probably the best place to start with reading philosophy i can think of. The socratic dialogues are always fun and easy to get into. Socrates is a bit of a moralist in his dialouge with Crito and in the dialogue with Euthypro he is straight up annoying as usual, not too surprising people didn't like him and he was put to death (although his defense speech was great).
April 8, 2025
Not what I expected from my first Plato, but I think that fault lies in myself rather than the text. Interesting work that enlightens me to the philosophy behind Plato’s work, but lacking in the depth I expected to find. Definitely makes me want to read Plato’s more formally canonised texts though.
August 22, 2026
My summary:
I'm hooked.
1) a not-so-subtle, funny, Euthyphro roast
2) Three attempts at answering what is holy :
a) Prosecuting the wrong is what is holy. But, that is an example of what is holy, but not a characteristic or property of holiness.
b) What is agreeable to the gods is holy. But, gods can love and hate the same things so there could be something that is holy and unholy at the same time.
c) Third time's a charm? Holy is that which is loved by all gods. Enter, Euthyphro's dilemma: Is the holy loved /approved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved/approved. Either the holy is separate from what the gods say, or holiness is determined by what the gods say/love. With the latter, we run into the same problem as (b). With the former, we question the power of god.
I'm hooked.
January 12, 2025
Good translation.
October 12, 2025
Boring waste of time. Do yourself a favor and just skip to Crito (the only interesting part in my opinion).
February 23, 2018
help! i've fallen and I can't get up!
July 1, 2008
I read this book as a part of my required ethics course in college at the University of Scranton (good olde Jesuit liberal arts education). I love this book. As a result of reading this book and taking the class, I declared Philosophy as my second major. This is a must read for everyone...especially anyone interested in Philosophy or ethics!
Read
June 5, 2013An excellent way to meet Socrates, and Socrates is an excellent way to meet philosophy.
July 22, 2019
This is the worst defendant’s speech I have ever seen. No wonder they killed him.
February 19, 2024
Euthyfrón - 3/5
Obrana Sokrata - 4/5
Kritón - 4.5/5
Argued his way to death and did it flawlessly.
Obrana Sokrata - 4/5
Kritón - 4.5/5
Argued his way to death and did it flawlessly.
March 18, 2023
Euthyphro
I never realized what a pedantic and sarcastically sanctimonious jerk Plato/Socrates were. The whole Euthyphro dialogue is so absurd. First of all it's essentially a longwinded strawman argument. Plato sets up every aspect of the dialogue to make Euthyphro seem like a fool and Socrates seem like a genius. Anyone can make themselves look good when they script the other half of an argument in their favour.
He makes several leaps of logic and involves extraneous variables into his leading questions that a competent debater would pick up and not walk into so freely. Which is what happens when normal people try to use the socratic method, they just sound like idiots and it does not work at all, it just pisses people off because they immediately hear how much smarter you think you are than them...even though they see you trying to paint them into a corner.
That being said there is one nugget of wisdom in this dialogue. Plato essentially disproves polytheism by pointing out that many gods being able to disagree with each other totally derails any concept of morality coming from a pantheon of gods. If morality is tied to God there can only be one. He also makes a good point in pointing out that you cannot appeal to "God said so" as an argument for something being good. He raises the important philosophical discussion of "is it good because God says it is good...or does God say it is good because he knows it is good." And I think he explains reasonably well why it can only be the latter.
Reading Plato helps me to understand why philosophy majors can be so insufferable.
Defense
I can also see why they had him killed assuming this is a true story. While standing trial he was so sanctimonious, I doubt anyone actually wanted him dead for any reason other than he was just being insufferable. Had he just said no I didn't do those things, had he just said no I'm not an atheist etc they would have acquitted him. But he goes on and on about how he's doing the world a favor by pointing out how stupid they are. When he argues for a lighter punishment he says give me free meals every day in prison, or exile me so I can travel the world. Or I'll pay a fine and even his friends thought the fine he suggested was insulting becausr they interrupted him to tell him to suggest a higher fine. I imagine he offered the equivalency of like a dollar or something. Everything he says is like he set out to annoy everyone into killing him.
Crito
I now have lost all respect for Socrates, i think he was not only arrogant and irritating but kind of stupid. The way he resigns himself to death and his reasoning for doing so is so ridiculous. This idea that it is unjust to defend yourself makes absolutely no sense and applied universally means that the people making all the rules will always be the most evil most tyrannical of people because the world would believe resisting them to be wrong. These dialogues present his reaosning as if it is pure reason and that he is simply reaching the only logical conclusions...but there are many times where he says something ridiculous and Crito just agrees with it. like he says is it always unjust to treat someone poorly. And Crito agrees but what Socrates just said makes no sense. The sensible answer is to say it depends. If you hit someone without provocation it was wrong, if you hit someone in self defense or hit someone to defend some other innocent then you treated them poorly but it was just. He then takes this ridiculous idea and extends it to the state as a whole, He reasons that escaping is doing injustice to an organization and is therefore wrong. His premise is stupid, his reaosning is flawed and his conclusion is ridiculous. If he were having this conversation with anyone but a strawman it would have been torn apart.
That being said, there was occasional nuggest of wisdom, it was interesting to read at times. But overall I found the philosophy in it to be ridiculous and annoying.
December 20, 2019
I was assigned this book in college and never finished it, so I took this opportunity to do so. Surprisingly, it is a smooth read despite its heavy topics. There are some parts that required a second or third glance to know what was being discussed, but for the most part, it wasn’t too difficult.
The book is in three parts: in the first, Socrates discusses with Euthyphro how the latter is prosecuting his father. He sets out to prove to Euthyphro that he is making an unjust decision because his father is only guilty of leaving a murderer in a poor condition while trying to figure out how to handle him (and so the man died). Some of this is convoluted and somewhat irritating. It’s like every moment and every thought is questioned so there’s never anything truly “known”
Second is Socrates’s trial. This is a monologue mostly whereby Socrates defends himself from the accusation of leading the youth astray. He stands by his principles and refuses to run or state that he’d do anything differently. Admirable.
Third is his conversation with Crito just before he is to die. Crito tries to convince him to run, but Socrates will not do so. He concludes that if he were to run, it would be showing that the Law was correct and he was in shame. If he follows them, it shows that it is human error that put him to death. Plus, he must agree with Athenian law if he lived there for 70 years and raised children there, right?
The book is in three parts: in the first, Socrates discusses with Euthyphro how the latter is prosecuting his father. He sets out to prove to Euthyphro that he is making an unjust decision because his father is only guilty of leaving a murderer in a poor condition while trying to figure out how to handle him (and so the man died). Some of this is convoluted and somewhat irritating. It’s like every moment and every thought is questioned so there’s never anything truly “known”
Second is Socrates’s trial. This is a monologue mostly whereby Socrates defends himself from the accusation of leading the youth astray. He stands by his principles and refuses to run or state that he’d do anything differently. Admirable.
Third is his conversation with Crito just before he is to die. Crito tries to convince him to run, but Socrates will not do so. He concludes that if he were to run, it would be showing that the Law was correct and he was in shame. If he follows them, it shows that it is human error that put him to death. Plus, he must agree with Athenian law if he lived there for 70 years and raised children there, right?
October 31, 2025
Classic. This is a historical record of conversation between philosophers in Greece. There is much talk of morals and religion. Beautifully written, though oftentimes verbose.
Most impactful quotes:
"Holiness, then, is just such a purified state of mind...a recognition of one's own ignorance, and the quest for understanding in oneself and others. In short, the holy person is the philosopher." (Introductio, xv)
"...the fear of death amounts simply to thinking one is wise when one is not: it is thinking one knows something one does not know. No one knows, you see, whether death may not in fsct prove the greatest of all blessings for mankind; but people fear it as if they knew it for certain to be the greatest of evils. And yet to think that one knows what one does not know must surely be the kind of folly which is reprehensible". (p 42)
"'It is not wealth', I tell you, 'that produces goodness; rather, it is from goodness that wealth, and all other benefits for human beings, accrue to them in their private and public life". (p 44)
"When my sons come of age, gentleman, punish them: give them the same sort of trouble that I used to give you, if you think they care for money or anything else more than for goodness, and if they think highly of themselves when they are of no value. Reprove them...for failing to care for the things they should, and for thinking highly of themselves when they are worthless." (p 58-59)
Most impactful quotes:
"Holiness, then, is just such a purified state of mind...a recognition of one's own ignorance, and the quest for understanding in oneself and others. In short, the holy person is the philosopher." (Introductio, xv)
"...the fear of death amounts simply to thinking one is wise when one is not: it is thinking one knows something one does not know. No one knows, you see, whether death may not in fsct prove the greatest of all blessings for mankind; but people fear it as if they knew it for certain to be the greatest of evils. And yet to think that one knows what one does not know must surely be the kind of folly which is reprehensible". (p 42)
"'It is not wealth', I tell you, 'that produces goodness; rather, it is from goodness that wealth, and all other benefits for human beings, accrue to them in their private and public life". (p 44)
"When my sons come of age, gentleman, punish them: give them the same sort of trouble that I used to give you, if you think they care for money or anything else more than for goodness, and if they think highly of themselves when they are of no value. Reprove them...for failing to care for the things they should, and for thinking highly of themselves when they are worthless." (p 58-59)
February 27, 2026
Euthyphro is arguably the only good dialogue in this, and even then it assumes words have an essence inherently, and not that an essence is applied to words pretty indiscriminately. What is piousness? depends how youre using it. then you go from there.
The Apology is is just Socrates getting screwed over in court and explaining that his only real crime is undermining officials, but that point seems redundant since the text seems to make it obvious that everyone already knows that and its an open secret being covered up by a half-assed allegation. So his prattling is just stating what everyone only disagrees with on paper and not in actuality, and thus its a pointless discussion for all involved and even the reader.
Crito is just Socrates saying "look crito, i have to bootlick and let big daddy government kill me because otherwise i will be tortured in hell and i dont want that". if you subscribe to religion, thats fair, if not, this whole argument falls apart. Its also not even a noble appeal to good, its just saying not to disobey the government because an even bigger divine government might torture for it.
The Apology is is just Socrates getting screwed over in court and explaining that his only real crime is undermining officials, but that point seems redundant since the text seems to make it obvious that everyone already knows that and its an open secret being covered up by a half-assed allegation. So his prattling is just stating what everyone only disagrees with on paper and not in actuality, and thus its a pointless discussion for all involved and even the reader.
Crito is just Socrates saying "look crito, i have to bootlick and let big daddy government kill me because otherwise i will be tortured in hell and i dont want that". if you subscribe to religion, thats fair, if not, this whole argument falls apart. Its also not even a noble appeal to good, its just saying not to disobey the government because an even bigger divine government might torture for it.
July 8, 2021
Ciężko napisać recenzję takiej "książki" ale na pewno mogę powiedzieć że te trzy dialogi Sokratesa bardzo dobrze się czyta mimo upływu ponad 2 tysięcy lat. Zawdzięczamy to przede wszystkim językowi które jest prosty i potoczny. Bardzo podobały mi się także objaśnienia Władysława Witwickiego w mojej wersji książki. Co do samej zawartości tych dialogów to Sokrates jak to na niego przystało zadaje wiele pytań. Porusza on takie kwestie jak np. czy wszystko co podoba się bogom jest pobożne albo czy śmierć jest czymś czego należy sie bać. Dialogi te jednak przedstawiają Sokratesa przede wszystkim jako człowieka z krwi i kości któremu ambicja bycia człowiekiem sprawiedliwym i dobrym nie pozwoliła zmienić swojej postawy i poglądów podczas procesu ani tym bardziej uciec z więzienia pomimo namowy swoich przyjaciół. Warto sięgnąć po ten zbiór nie tylko ze względu na walory filozoficzne ale także, że daje nam jako tako wgląd w życie i sposób myślenia ówczesnych ludzi.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews