Ancient Philosophy

Socrates - Crito

Primary Source:

• Plato, Crito from Baird and Kaufmann, Ancient Philosophy, pp. 105-113.

Secondary Source:

• Irwin, “The Problem of Justice” and “Intelligible Misunderstandings of Socrates” from Classical Thought, pp. 79-84.

Dialogue Outline and Questions:

• Characters and Setting (43a – 44b)
  • Where does this dialogue take place? Why is Socrates there and not executed?
• Crito’s Exhortation to Escape (44b – 46a)
  • In this section, Crito rapidly presents a cluster of about 7 reasons for Socrates to escape. What are these reasons Crito give for Socrates to escape?
• Socrates’ Initial Reply to Crito and Three Premises (46b – 49a)
  • If you read carefully, you might realize that Socrates is actually quite sad here. He is going to repudiate Crito’s reasons, but he cannot repudiate Crito’s feelings (or Crito’s “eagerness”). Socrates is a lifelong friend of Crito and so wants him to understand why he cannot escape.
  • Socrates points to a character trait of his that requires him to conduct a rational discussion to determine what he ought to do. What is this? (Hint: If you recall the Adkins’ article, this is the opposite of how a Homeric hero would behave.) This is an important premise in Socrates’ argument.
  • Then Socrates distinguishes two types of opinions, what are they? Which opinions are to be valued? This is another important premise in Socrates’ argument.
  • How does Socrates claim that people must live? This is a third premise of the argument.
• Two Further Premises (49a – 50a)
  • Socrates gets Crito to agree to something that Socrates believes few people would ever believe is true. Yet Crito claims to still hold this. What is this that Crito (perhaps too hastily) agrees to? This is a fourth premise of the argument.
  • Finally, Crito agrees to a claim concerning agreements. What is this claim? This is the final premise.
  • With this premises in place, Socrates quickly comes to the conclusion concerning whether or not he ought to escape. What is this conclusion? How do the five premises justify this conclusion?
• The Speech of the Laws of Athens (50a – 54d)
  • Actually Socrates’ argument is finished, but Crito (who is a simple old man, who doesn’t want his friend to die) still doesn’t “get it”, so Socrates tells a story to explain the argument just made.
• How does this story make Socrates point?
• In the final analysis, do you accept Socrates’ argument? If so, why? If not, what premises do you find fault with?

I love Apache! So should you!