Socrates And Civil Disobedience

One key question surrounding any philosopher’s teachings is whether or not there can be harmony between their own philosophical views and political matters. In particular, Plato’s portrayal of Socrates in Defence of Socrates and Crito presents a contradiction in his reasoning with regard to civil disobedience. Socrates remains firm in Defence of Socrates that he would continue to practice philosophy despite the court’s judgement, whereas his stance in Crito emphasizes the importance of obeying the laws of the city no matter what. While Socrates changes his perspective on civil disobedience between the two texts, there is a much larger and important contradiction between the values of philosophy and those of the state. In this paper, I will (1) clarify Socrates’ arguments with …show more content…
Socrates responds to charges against him by Meletus by describing his philosophical awareness as not being more knowledgeable than others, but instead as recognizing his own lack of knowledge. It is within the practice of philosophy that Socrates brings others to be more wary and alert of their lack of knowledge, leading to benefits for society. Socrates utilizes the less formal analogy of himself as a fly constantly buzzing around a horse, stating that “I have literally been attached by God to our city, as if to a horse – a large thoroughbred, which is a bit sluggish because of its size, and needs to be aroused” (Plato, Defence of Socrates 30e) . By making such a comparison, Socrates points to how his presence may be bothersome, but is necessary for the betterment of the state and the smooth running of society. When the court presents a proposal for Socrates to agree to halt his philosophical practice or face the death penalty, he adamantly refuses on the grounds that his philosophical work is too important to