Discussion Of Socrates In Plato's The Crito

The Crito by Plato is premised with Socrates in his prison cell and awaiting his execution. Socrates’ friend Crito then comes and tries to convince him to escape his cell. Socrates and Crito discuss and argue about whether Socrates should escape prison or not. In their dialogue, the topic about laws emerge. Socrates states, “by giving every Athenian the opportunity, once arrived at voting age and having observed the affairs of the city and us the laws...he can take his possessions and go wherever he pleases. Not one of our laws raises any obstacle or forbids him” (Crito, 51d). In other words, if you are unhappy with the laws in Athens, you can leave or persuade them to be changed but if not, you have to be compliant and obey the laws. This section of the text is quite interesting because of the paradoxical nature of Socrates’ statement. On one hand, Socrates is making a valid and logical argument that if a citizen is not happy with a law or thinks one is unjust, that one can vote and use democracy to help reshape the laws. However, on the other hand, Socrates’ argument is limiting because of the fact that what made a voting citizen was owning land and being male. …show more content…
The status of women in the ancient world usually meant having a sphere of influence only within the confines of the household and that their duties were mostly domestic. Especially in the responsibilities of producing children and being obedient to their husbands. In this regard, Socrates’ argument that “he can take his possessions and go wherever he pleases” is not applicable to women because not only were their responsibilities to the home, but they also couldn't own property or own possessions. Everything they had was not theirs, but their husbands. This highlights the limitations of Socrates’s argument because it only applied to men and women were left