2.Is there a contradiction between Socrates’ position in the Apology and in the Crito with respect to the reverence due to the law? If yes, explain how we can reconcile both positions. If no, explain what is common in them.
Yes, there is a contradiction between the two.
In Crito, Socrates tries to personifies the Laws of Athens in an attempt to prove why he chose not to defend himself. First, he says that if he were to defend himself he would be breaking his word. He has agreed to obey the laws verbally, and his actions prove that he really tried. In Crito, Plato claims that Socrates in running away would be “attempting to run away contrary to the contracts and agreements according to which you contracted with us to be governed.” Obedience, …show more content…
He believes that justice is living up to your legal obligations and giving what is owed. It is a matter of behaving nicely towards others, a very traditional approach to justice. Meanwhile, Polemarchus believes that it is just to be good to friends and bad to enemies, a very militaristic version of justice. Socrates very easily finds fault in both arguments and refutes both with ease. For both, Socrates appeals to their acceptance of the traditional belief that injustice is shameful because if justice is admirable and injustice is shameful, then justice is good and injustice is bad, which means in no situation would injustice be advantageous, which is untrue and leads to Thrasymachus’ …show more content…
Like in the Allegory of the Cave, philosophers are able to see the forms and the “true reality” of life. Because of their epistemological nature, they are made to be kings. They consider all aspects of situations and then explain the necessary reasons behind them. They have knowledge that is uncodifiable, which leads them to them to making good political decisions.
Extra Credit:
What have your learnt from Plato? Life is never as it seems. Nothing is real, essentially. Everything we think we know, we don’t know. And, everything we do know, is either not real or an overt lie because we don’t know anything. Life and the human soul is composed of contradiction. Like a puzzle, it is pieced together with a lot of thing you think don’t fit, but actually do, making up the whole of a human. Specifically, Plato, has taught me to surround yourself with really smart individuals and then write down what they say because maybe people will remember you in the future as a really intelligent
Yes, there is a contradiction between the two.
In Crito, Socrates tries to personifies the Laws of Athens in an attempt to prove why he chose not to defend himself. First, he says that if he were to defend himself he would be breaking his word. He has agreed to obey the laws verbally, and his actions prove that he really tried. In Crito, Plato claims that Socrates in running away would be “attempting to run away contrary to the contracts and agreements according to which you contracted with us to be governed.” Obedience, …show more content…
He believes that justice is living up to your legal obligations and giving what is owed. It is a matter of behaving nicely towards others, a very traditional approach to justice. Meanwhile, Polemarchus believes that it is just to be good to friends and bad to enemies, a very militaristic version of justice. Socrates very easily finds fault in both arguments and refutes both with ease. For both, Socrates appeals to their acceptance of the traditional belief that injustice is shameful because if justice is admirable and injustice is shameful, then justice is good and injustice is bad, which means in no situation would injustice be advantageous, which is untrue and leads to Thrasymachus’ …show more content…
Like in the Allegory of the Cave, philosophers are able to see the forms and the “true reality” of life. Because of their epistemological nature, they are made to be kings. They consider all aspects of situations and then explain the necessary reasons behind them. They have knowledge that is uncodifiable, which leads them to them to making good political decisions.
Extra Credit:
What have your learnt from Plato? Life is never as it seems. Nothing is real, essentially. Everything we think we know, we don’t know. And, everything we do know, is either not real or an overt lie because we don’t know anything. Life and the human soul is composed of contradiction. Like a puzzle, it is pieced together with a lot of thing you think don’t fit, but actually do, making up the whole of a human. Specifically, Plato, has taught me to surround yourself with really smart individuals and then write down what they say because maybe people will remember you in the future as a really intelligent