Socrates Conception Of Virtue In Crito, Apology, And

Better Essays
In Plato’s three works Crito, Apology, and Euthyphro, Socrates’ conception of virtue and pursuit of knowledge about virtue, leads him to question and in some cases reject the ideas of others. Examples that show this are: Socrates discussion with Crito, his questioning of Meletus in the Apology, his speech to the jury before and after his conviction, and in his discussion with Euthyphro about what is pious. The teachings of these three works seem to go hand and hand with one another, with the teaching of the Crito being a culmination of the teachings of Euthyphro and Apology. If one were to read Apology and Euthyphro without reading the Crito, one may not understand the teachings of the formers since the Crito gives practice to the teachings …show more content…
In the Crito, Socrates asks Crito “is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits…or do we think that part of us…is inferior to the body?” Crito’s answer is no to both presented questions. Socrates then asks if the soul is more valuable than the body, which Crito answers yes. In this line, Socrates is stating that the health of one’s soul is paramount to one’s body and doing unjust action harms the soul. Socrates is arguing that just actions benefit the soul and are virtuous while unjust actions harm the soul and are not virtuous. These series of questions culminate into Socrates’ conception of virtue leading him to reject Crito’s pleas for him to escapes because if he does he will be disobeying the laws of the state. By disobeying the law of the state he would be committing an injustice and doing what is wrong therefore harming his soul. If he harmed his soul, then he would not be living the virtuous or examined life which he states in the Apology “is not worth living”; so even if he disagrees with the state he must still obey its laws since that is, in his perception of virtue, just and right. This dialogue gives more understanding as to why Socrates questions the views and actions of others and gives practice to Plato’s teachings from Euthyphro and …show more content…
This means that those who have the knowledge to understand what is right and wrong also understand justice. Socrates asks Meletus who has knowledge of the laws to which he answers, “these jurymen, Socrates”, Socrates then asks what about the Councilors and the assembly to which Meletus answers yes again. Socrates asks one final question asking if all Athenians improve the youth but he alone corrupts them to which Meletus answers yes. By answering yes Meleteus is asserting that all Athenian citizens except Socrates understand what is right and wrong. This would mean that the Athenian way of life is the life of virtue and therefore the life worth living; Socrates by questioning this way of life is going against what Meletus and his supporters perceive to be virtue. Socrates find this absurd and tells Meletus, “I do not believe you…and I do not think anyone else will” because how could one possibly believe that all Athenians except Socrates have the proper understanding of virtue. Socrates in stating this is asserting that if the jurymen believe in Meletus’ claim then they will be giving justice based on who they favor and not in accordance with the law. By doing this, they would be disobeying the laws of the state which Socrates says is impious in the Crito and therefore, would not be leading lives of virtue according to his perception of virtue. Following his

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Or is better to say that Justice is indefinable and unsolvable, and that is beyond human understanding? Plato and Socrates imparted their noble wisdom so that we were better off in life. If they would be still around, they would be disillusioned to see our state of deterioration. They endeavored us to be in harmony with our souls. Indeed, things, people, and ideas have changed, except…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For Socrates knows that Simonides would not agree that a crazy man should be given his weapon back simply because the weapon belong to the man. Socrates knows that Simonides must have a motive for reasoning and must mean something else, something that maybe Socrates cannot understand. Polemarchus then tries to explain to Socrates that what Simonides really meant is that the friends should only do well to each other, and not hurt each other. So then Socrates questions Polermarchus again and asks him if that means that if Simonides also mean that you should do harm to your enemies. Polermarchus says that that’s exactly what Simonides means and again Socrates does not agree with this definition of justice.…

    • 1313 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Socrates and Protagoras argue virtue, as mentioned earlier, as something that could be taught or not. Protagoras starts his argument saying virtue cannot be taught, Socrates on the other hand believes otherwise. Socrates has the belief that virtue is knowledge and so can be taught, Protagoras disagrees with this point of view, he is against the belief that virtue is knowledge and if he does not believe this then virtue to him is unteachable. Socrates is on the side that knowledge is superior and all powerful and so it rules man. Protagoras believes that knowledge although being all powerful is treated like a slave as what rules man is not knowledge but other emotions such as anger, love, pleasure, pain, courage, and sometimes even fear.…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, Socrates does not manage to explain how if a virtue makes it “natural”, it is automatically “intrinsically good”. His failure to efficiently demonstrate the truth of this proposition drastically weakens his argument, since he claims justice is the “health” of the soul to prove why it’s good in itself. While claiming his analogy of the weak connection between justice and health, he believes that justice is not only good for itself but good for other things as well, stating that justice results…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    From this conversation between Agathon and Socrates, Socrates is trying to convince Agathon that people do not desire what they already have. Instead, people want to preserve the qualities they have now so that they can have them in the future. Socrates also reminds Agathon of having claimed that there is love of beautiful things. Therefore, Love cannot be beautiful if it desires beauty. This suggests that Love must lack beauty, which completely contradicts Agathon’s speech about Eros.…

    • 1492 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Socrates continues to explain how he can’t violate the verdict, which in this case is the death penalty therefore, it would be wrong because Socrates couldn’t go against his principles. Socrates states, “ Come then, if we destroy that which becomes better by the healthful and is corrupted by the distasteful, because we don’t obey the opinion of the experts, is life worth living for us when it has been corrupted? Surely this is the body, isn’t it?”(47e) Socrates is explaining how in his mind life is not worth living unless it is lived appropriately in this case being, that the ethical life is more important than life itself. Socrates continues his justification on why he can’t escape prison because by committing this action he would be doing what he considers as the unjust thing because he would’ve been seen as a dishonorable…

    • 1240 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Wisdom In Plato's Apology

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages

    And with ignorance comes fear. When people have a fear of ignorance it causes them to lie so they can be viewed in almost a God like image of never being wrong. So the third way human wisdom plays a role in his argument is that it sheds light on his accusers true colors. Human ignorance can easily be mistaken for human wisdom, which is one of the main points he’s trying to get across. Lastly, Socrates uses his views on human wisdom to explain how it would be ignorant of him to corrupt society; which as I mentioned before, is the reason for him being in court.…

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (Plato, 22) Here Socrates prove his point by meaning, if all materials target for their only perfection, making them self-sufficient there will be no use of aspects, however, with the aspects it will find their greatest benefit. What Socrates meant, doctors and pilots they don’t do the best thing for them self as “Thrasymachus claimed about rulers” but for the sake of their people. To rephrase it, Socrates proves to Thrasymachus his understanding of ruler is wrong because rulers should worry about their people not themselves. Socrates continues to point out Thrasymachus idea about injustice is more profitable, and strong men have the courage to break the rules; they can take advantage of the weak and justice is differed. (Plato, 31) Further, Socrates confirms the group that Thrasymachus is wrong on three points; one, that the unjust man is superior to the just man with knowledge, second, the injustice is strength, and third injustice brings happiness.…

    • 1816 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    More importantly, prosecuting a wrongdoer has no regard for who the person may be ( ). This definition of piety proves to be troubling for Socrates because it is an example of what a pious action is as opposed to the defining characteristics of piety. According to this definition piety is simply prosecuting and punishing those who coming any wrongdoing, however, there are many more things considered pious yet not relating to this definition. For Socrates, there is a distinction between providing an effect of being pious and having a clear definition of the characteristics of piety. What Socrates is searching for is the essential characteristics of piety.…

    • 1230 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Socrates Justice Analysis

    • 1788 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The most notable objection I present is the argument that I do not believe Socrates can justify the claim that people with just souls are practically just. An individual with a just soul, to be pragmatically just, must refrain from unjust actions, and it must be that the actions they perform are done so because it is required by justice. Socrates must be able to prove that people with just souls will satisfy both claims. Socrates defends his definition regarding the first claim by citing several examples, stating that a person with a just soul would be chosen to perform duties that could easily be taken advantage of, and would not betray his fellow citizens (442e-443a). Socrates does not present a thorough argument as to why those with just souls would never act in pragmatically unjust manner, but at least references why he does not believe they would.…

    • 1788 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics