The Presentation of Socrates' Arguements in Plato’s Apology and Crito

In both Plato’s Apology and Crito, Plato presents Socrates arguments clearly and precisely. Socrates is wise man with a different perspective on life, which presents us with a mass of contradictions. Socrates is an expressive man, yet he never recorded any works. He is ignorant, but wrongfully convicted who is willing to fight his unjust execution. Behind these dilemmas is an opposition not often explored. Socrates is the most patriotic of philosophers, who is dedicated to his state. Exploring this contradiction between Socrates the loyal citizen and Socrates the philosophical man will help position Plato's arguments. Although, Socrates approach to his defense in my opinion is not the best, and is certainly not an apology.

The argument in Plato’s Apology is that one should never betray one’s values for any reason, even if the reason is death. This statement is the basis of everything Socrates states during the trial. Values is also his reasoning for himself and for the jury. Socrates makes a promise to the jury that he will never stop philosophizing even it mean disobeying the court. This standpoint emphasizes and underlines obedience. The people before Socrates are considered influential Athenians. These wrong doings Socrate is accused of includes not recognizing the gods, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. During the trial of Socrates, the court addresses issues such as his views on death. Socrates proposed that death was ultimately a good thing. Socrates states that there were two outcomes of death. Either through dying, one has no longer any awareness of anything. In Socrates second outcome of death, one’s soul experiences a transformation and becomes this perfect being. While addressing the jury Socrates ...

... middle of paper ...

.... Then appeals to the jury in their sense of values comparing it with his. Although, even though I believe he did a great job defending himself, it could have been this attitude that was his downfall. In the Crito, Socrates does make some valid arguments, but comparing the Apology to the Crito there are some inconsistencies

In conclusion “It has been said that the true purpose of philosophy is not to answer questions but rather to question the answers that have been given”. This is exactly what Socrates does in his dialogues. In my opinion he does fully address the issue in some of the arguments Cirto says to Socrates. In his apology, which really is not an apology, I believe no matter what he said in the court his fate was already decided. He was wrongfully accused and was trialed unjustly. Also, I do believe that his arguments for escaping prison were justified.