Chapter 2 :The GREEKS

            Crito, a prosperous and wealthy friend, pays a visit to Socrates in his prison with intentions to entreat him to escape from the injustice imposed on him.  Socrates will not flee from execution if he cannot logically deliberate a good reason in doing so. He elucidates the severity of Socrates’ imprisonment in his deep concern of how the many will perceive him (Crito).  Crito is loaded, and if Socrates does not agree to flee, many people will suppose that he refused to fund the old man’s escape.  Hence, the many will point their fingers at Crito in repulsion and will presume that on no account did he appreciate the life of an esteemed friend.  Crito says, 

“For if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do not know you and me will believe that I might have saved you if I had been willing to give money, but that I did not care.  Now, can there be a worse disgrace than this--that I should be thought to value money more than the life of a friend?” (Crito). 

             Crito considers the opinion of the many to be a great evil, as it will theoretically trash his reputation.  Socrates discovers no logical, rational basis in Crito’s proposal and in his anxiety.  The many may have an opinion, but Socrates does not believe that popular opinion is necessarily the truth.  Socrates refutes Crito and says, 

“But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?  Good men, and they are   the only persons worth considering, will think of these truly as they occurred,” (Crito).  

 In essence, Socrates tells Crito that only the opinion of the wise and good should be regarded, and not that of the majority.  He now attempts to explain to Crito why escaping would be the wrong thing to do.  He will consider Crito’s proposal, debating whether it is right or wrong, via a dialectal approach consisting of reasoning and cross-examination (questioning) and will account for his decision to remain in prison.  Socrates will not escape if he senses any wrong in his argument.  Crito assures Socrates that a safe haven is secured for him in Thessaly and friends are readily willing to financially support his escape.  Once again, Socrates does not consider this a good reason to leave.  Crito then goes on to rationalize that Socrates should spare his life in order to educate and nurture his children in a righteous manner.  Crito misleadingly makes an effort to convince Socrates that he would be a coward to abandon his children in submitting to the condemnation of the jury.  Crito says, 

“No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to persevere to the end in their nurture and education.  But you appear to be choosing the easier part, not the better and manlier, which would have been more becoming in one who professes to care for virtue of all his actions, like yourself,” (Crito). 

                Socrates declines Crito’s proposition.  Socrates does not respect the opinion of the many and therefore he finds Crito’s approach of persuasion to be defective.   He would rather die than deprive his children of Athenian citizenship.  He also feels that in exile, his children would look up to his actions, as he is a father figure, and most likely praise and emulate him.  They would believe it is good to defy the laws of a state and to escape from the consequences of reality.  In turn, he would harm his children and corrupt them with immorality.  He explains to Crito that he is a man of reason and thus the resentment he may feel toward the jury does not drive him to make his decision.  Instead, he considers whether or not it would be right or wrong to leave in accordance with a reasoning process.   

“For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best, and now that this chance has befallen on me, I cannot repudiate my own words: the principles I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can at once find other and better principles, I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of the multitude could inflict any more imprisonments, confiscations, deaths frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors,” (Crito). 

             Once again, Crito adamantly makes Socrates aware of the criminal and dishonest manner that the jury came to condemn Socrates.  Socrates believes that although the jury wronged him in the most unjust manner that he must not return the wrong for he strongly deems it inappropriate to be vindictive.  Socrates says,  

“Then, my friend we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say.  And therefore you begin in error when you advise that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable.-- Well, someone will say but the many can kill us.” (Crito). 

            Socrates cannot picture his life without preaching philosophy to the world.  To examine life in search of the truth, of the good, is a duty that has been bestowed on him by god.  There is no existence for Socrates if it is devoid of investigation. 

“Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy…For know that this is the command of God;and I believe that no greater good has ever happened in the State than my service to God,” (Apology).  

            Socrates believes that if he escapes he will wrong the state, although he is absolutely aware of the unjust manner in which his life is being fiddled with.  Yet, Socrates does not hold the laws of Athens accountable of this injustice.  Instead, he embraces these decrees because they have nurtured him and promoted his education.   He does not deem it just to disrupt the state that has reared him, made him a citizen of Athens, and would not even fathom retribution.   

“We ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him” (Crito). 

                He proceeds in a pretend discourse between him and the Laws of Athens, which he refers to as one entity.  Socrates attempts to illustrate why he can not defy the laws of authority.  These laws essentially are responsible for Socrates’ imminent and unmerited demise, yet they are also those which have fostered his entire existence. 

“In the first place, did we not bring you into existence?  Your father married your mother and begat you.  Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?  None, I should reply.  Or against those of us who after birth regulate the nurture and education of children in which you were trained?  Were not the laws, which have the charge of education, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?  Right, I should reply.  “Well, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you?” (Crito).            

            The laws also indicate that if an Athenian is not content with his city, then he may leave and reside in another state.  Socrates has been a permanent and loyal citizen of Athens, as he has only left her to defend her in times of war.  According to the laws, this is a candid acquiescence on behalf of Socrates and proof that he truly honors his city and is content there.  He is prepared to abide by and respect these laws for the reason that they are essentially his parents, and feels indebted to them as a child of Athens.  “No man has any right to strike a blow at his country any more than at his father or mother,“ (56).  He also produced two children in Athens which also substantiates his happiness.   The laws tell him, 

            “But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him,” (Crito).  

            Socrates obviously expresses his gratitude to the laws of Athens.  The laws of Athens, in turn, acknowledge his innocence and advise him to die in order to preserve honor and virtue. 

                “Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws but of men.  But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those who you ought least of all to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us.  Listen, then, to us and not to Crito.”  (Crito).

            Socrates’ decision to remain in prison and accept the sentence illustrates the incongruity of his demise.  He must die to remain innocent, but Socrates embraces this idea of death.  Socrates’ destruction ultimately becomes his philosophical purpose in this world.  How may a destruction of the living actually lead to the purpose of life?  Well,  this is what is meant by “Socratic Irony”.  This very notion indicates to us that Socrates sought the good life as he perceived it to be the sole driving force behind his own existence.  For this reason, Socrates believed that if he could not live his life in search of the truth, or as he terms “the good life”, then his lethal condemnation would only guide him to it in the afterlife.  Thus ironically, in his death, Socrates will be lead to the good life, which is his one and only raison d’être.   

             Furthermore, we ascertain another incongruity in his decisiveness.  Socrates chose to die for the mere reason that his innocence would remain true and unquestioned posthumously.  Indeed, he died in the most virtuous manner simply being true to himself, knowing he could not live a life without philosophy (Philosophy). To Socrates, a life without searching for the truth was not fit to live in.  If Socrates chose to spare his life, then he would have gone against his oath.  This in turn would prove his guilt, as in breaking the oath he would be impious and a corruptor of the youth.  This would not be a good life for him.  If he dies however, he will remain innocent of the two charges.  He will die in a good manner and go on to a world with all the answers.  Thus, we see how his death is his purpose as both are considered by him to be good.            

            If Socrates chose to leave from his prison and escape his imminent death, he would make evident his culpability of the charges brought against him and in turn, validate the jury’s precision of their charges.  He was convicted of impiety and corruption of the youth as he posed a threat to the restored democratic regime of Athens.   In the opening of his trial, Socrates undoubtedly asserts his sincerity in telling the truth; he says: 

“Never mind the manner [of his speech], which may or may not be good; but think only of the truth of my words, and give heed to that: let the speaker speak truly and the judge decide justly” (Apology). 

            Socrates essentially makes an oath to tell the entire truth, and is not especially concerned with disproving the jury’s allegations.  He also swears to accept the penalty if he is found guilty. This oath that he has made to God is of supreme importance to Socrates.   

“…God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of searching into myself and other men, [if] I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of gods…” (Apology). 

            He has no intention, by any means, of defying the pledge he has made, for the truth is good, as maintained by his philosophy.  If Socrates were to escape from imprisonment, he would violate his devoutly sworn oath of punitive recognition, and naturally be guilty of skepticism, consequently implementing the charge of impiety.  The next charge, corruption of the youth would also be fulfilled.  If the youth were to be made aware of Socrates’ triumphant getaway from prison, they would assume that it is simple to defy the law and get away with it.   Moreover, they would, perhaps, begin  speaking against the Athenian government.  He would set a bad example, and thus corrupt the mind of these youths.            

“…thither I went, and sought to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the State before he looks to the interests of the State; and this should be the order which he observes in all his actions…” (Apology).

            Here, we witness a man who dedicated his whole life in seeking to do the greatest good to his children, to his city, to all of humanity, and to himself.  As his life is being swept from right under him, he does not react in horror or fear.  Instead, he logically convinces himself that death is better than life, for in death he will find the truth and the good.  If death is reminiscent of profound sleep, Socrates is wise as he says that it should be “an unspeakable gain,” (Apology).  He will comfort himself in eternal slumber.  If it is a journey to another place, Socrates will continue his search of knowledge, the truth, and the good.  On a more pleasant note, he would have a ball asking questions forever, and therefore do what he loves.  There, he will attain the good life. 

“For if I tell you to do as you say would be a disobedience to God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear about me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are less likely to believe me,”  (Apology).