Plato and Socrates Part 2: Crito and Phaedo
- The Philosophy Junkie
- May 7, 2020
- 13 min read
Updated: Jun 11, 2020
So, before we start with today’s episode: I took your suggestions and I’m really thankful to those who have supported me on this. Today, I will begin with a brief about the whole situation so that whenever we go into a couple of nasty details, we are prepared for it. Last time, we talked about Socrates and Plato’s book ‘The Apology’. Today, we’ll continue with Socrates and look at some of Plato’s early dialogues to gain a better sense of Socrates and understand the sort of Philosopher Plato was in the beginning.
The thing we need to understand about Plato is that he is not only a philosopher but he is also a writer. And just like any other writer, we can see Plato evolve and become a better version of himself. We see this transition happen as we move from his early dialogues, which were also called Socratic dialogues, to his middle dialogues, and thereafter to his later dialogues, which were the dialogues he wrote just before he died. During the early dialogues, we can find Socrates clearing doubts and hence exposing his interlocutor’s theories and affirmations. However, in the middle dialogues, we find Socrates forming his own theories and defending them with good argumentation just like we hoped we would when he was presented before the jury in the apology. From this, we can also say that Socrates has now turned from an editor/critic to a writer of sorts. We can see Socrates, in the later dialogues, actually going out of his comfort zone to expand our knowledge of philosophy. Another thing to take note of is that in the earlier dialogues we can witness Socrates actually talking about things that are less profound in their nature. For example, in the apology, we see Socrates talking about things that are more personal to him like his belief in gods, his activity of corruption of the youth, et cetera. However, in the later dialogues, we would witness him explaining various profound theories like Knowledge, Reality and the State. One thing to particularly notice about the evolution of Socrates as a philosopher, alongside Plato, is that they both become mature through their journey together. In the beginning, we see Socrates is regarded as the wisest man just because he knew that his knowledge was limited and therefore he was quite aware of the extent of his own knowledge. But later, we see Socrates putting forward various forms of knowledge itself, further proving that human knowledge may have different aspects to it of which he was, until recently, unaware.
Now, today we are going, to begin with a famous Socratic dialogue, although not one of my favourite ones, Crito. You remember in the last dialogue, the apology, we saw that Socrates was sentenced to death. Well, in Crito we witness Socrates being persuaded by his wealthy friend Crito to escape the prison and run away to some other city. Before we begin, let's talk about something. Let's talk about civil disobedience. Do you think it is right to go against the state if you deem the state to be unjust in its ways? I can hear you all sighing and going “of course, yeah.” Well, you're absolutely right. But I don't think Socrates was aware of this. He believed, at least in the earlier dialogues, that it was unjust to go against the state no matter what the state tells you to do. Does that sound like the state is tyrannical? I think it's quite obvious that a state wherein you are unable to put forward your opinions or argue with the state, a state where any form of dissent is discouraged, is a tyrannical state. Now, let us come back to the question of civil disobedience. Would you agree that it is okay, or rather it is encouraged, that one goes against any tyrannical state in the form of civil disobedience? On top of that, if your answer to that question is a yes, would you agree that civil disobedience is probably the best way of going against a tyrannical state? There are so many examples that agree with the statement, like that of Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, the French Revolution and many more. In all these situations, civil disobedience worked like a charm. Now let's go back 2000 years. Do you think it would be just if Socrates went against the word of the jury and ran away from the prison in order to initiate a form of civil disobedience to the tyrannical decision of the state? I mean if you think about it, Socrates did not actually commit a proper crime. In very basic terms, Socrates basically pissed off a lot of people and then most of the jury, making sure that he was awarded a death sentence for his philosophy. If you remember in the apology, Socrates basically said that he would rather die than be stopped from philosophising. Now, if you also remember Socrates does not believe in philosophising in the form of writing, therefore all the philosophy that he is conducting is happening in his brain or in the form of dialogues. So, basically, Socrates agreed that he would rather die than not be able to process information in a rational and philosophical manner. Think about this, there was no possible way of anybody getting to know what Socrates was doing inside his brain, right? So, if you think about it, Socrates died for nothing. He could've just said that he agrees to not philosophise any more but then continue philosophising. Well, this is why Crito is not one of my favourite dialogues. Let's jump into it.
So, the Crito picks up from the end of the Apology. We see Socrates in the prison and he is then approached by his friend Crito. Crito informs Socrates of the ship’s arrival which would mark an end for Socrates’ life and the completion of his death sentence. Crito has come to present an escape plan to Socrates which can be easily executed because Crito is heavily loaded with money and has a lot of friends who can help him out in various areas of this escape plan. He begins his argument by telling Socrates that Socrates should think about his duty to his children and not give in to those who convicted him. He also goes on to say that Socrates would be viewed in a bad light by many if he continued with the unjust sentence that he has been given by the jury. Now, let's go back to our talk about civil disobedience. Do you think it would be just for Socrates to go against the unjust conviction by the jury? Furthermore, do you think it would be just for Socrates to abandon the prison, run away, to be there for his children, considering he did not do anything wrong per se as I mentioned before? According to Socrates, the answer to those questions is a simple no. How about we all reverse-engineered this? Socrates believes that the state has the right to punish anyone in any manner that they deem fit for any crime, right? What if Socrates, who, if you recall from the apology, is the wisest man in all of Athens, believes that the state has supreme authority and the people of the state act as mere subjects to those running the state, then do you think Socrates is okay with the idea of the state running as if it was an authoritative political set up? If your answer to that is yes, then the state must be tyrannical, right? If Socrates, the wisest man believes it to be true, then it must be. What’s funny is that Socrates practically believes in the state because of its new origin due to the fall of the tyranny of the 30 after the Peloponnesian War. But his belief is so blind that he is okay with the new state, which was formed after the fall of an oppressive oligarchy which was almost a tyranny (even called the tyranny of the 30). So, even though Crito has no philosophical knowledge, he is speaking quite logically whereas Socrates is not. So much so, we can even claim that Socrates is acting on pure individual belief. Now, another point that Crito brings up is that such a voluntary acceptance of his own death would be quite shameful considering how wise, honourable and just Socrates is considered in Athens. If you look a bit deeper, you'll see how Crito is trying to trick Socrates into using his ego to make decisions. He further goes on to say that Socrates was wronged by the city of Athens and so he did not actually have any obligation to stay true to the death sentence that he was given.
After this long monologue that Crito gives, Socrates begins his defence and his counter-argument. The point to remember here is that Crito barely has any philosophical knowledge so he just goes on agreeing to whatever Socrates says. Socrates quickly dismisses Crito’s argument about the arrangements for the escape, the fact that Crito would lose a good friend and that Socrates has an obligation to his children. For the other arguments that Crito puts forward, it is important for us to take something into consideration. For Socrates, knowledge is practically everything. That is, everything in this world revolves around knowledge according to him. Now, if you remember, Crito put forth an important argument saying that Socrates’ reputation is on the line. To this, Socrates replies that the opinion of the many does not matter. To this Crito replies that if it didn't matter, Socrates would not be sitting in a cell waiting to die. Keeping in mind the premise that we established that knowledge is everything for Socrates, I want you to listen to what Socrates had to say to this. He said the many cannot do the most harm as they cannot do the most good, where ‘most harm’ refers to making a man foolish and ‘most good’ is making a man wise. The conversation takes a turn to a discussion into what sort of activities require the opinion of an expert and which ones are okay to be judged by the many. Socrates describes that he finds the many to not be experts at the majority of things. But we can deduce that Socrates was okay with the many deciding whether or not Socrates was guilty during his trial in the apology. He's also okay with the democracy that has been established within Athens after the tyranny of the 30, a democracy which marks the beginning of a rule of the people in the city of Athens. He goes on to say that in matters like physical training and other things, the advice of the expert is a much more reliable source of information and that is what we should believe instead of thinking about the opinion of the many. He then goes on to say and I quote “In the matter of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world: and who deserting we shall destroy and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice; is there not such a principle?” This is a classic case of hypocrisy. If Socrates really believes in the democracy of the people and the jury of 500 laymen, he is trusting the many with the just and unjust, the right and the wrong, good and evil, etc. His argument not only hypocritical but is also a non-sequitur. That means that his argument, his conclusion does not really coincide with the primary premise that was proposed. Who judges as to when it is okay for the many’s opinions to be correct and appropriate?
Now, there are some promises that we come across during this conversation. Let's explore those.
The first premise: we should live rightly. This is basically to say that we should do what is right and not fall prey to all things that are wrong.
The second premise: we should never do wrong. This is in conjunction with the previous premise but adds a very good point to it – you cannot return wrong for a wrong.
The final premise that he puts forth is One must keep up their end of the agreement. We arrive at this premise through the conversation about the Laws. The one thing that really appeals to people about this dialogue is the personification of The Laws. Now, let’s even further diversify our premise. Socrates’ claims suggested that:
Socrates, like all citizens of Athens, has entered into an agreement with the Laws
The Laws are essentially just in their nature (so the people might be sour in their judgement but the same cannot be said about the laws).
Now, a counter augment can be raised that Socrates believed in the laws of the state and not the state itself. Actually, Socrates brings up this argument himself. He asks Crito to imagine the Laws of the State to be an actual person. Socrates concocts a hypothetical conversation between himself and the personification/embodiment of the laws of the city of Athens. In this conversation, we see something interesting: Socrates takes the position of a not so wise man whereas the laws take the position of the wise person. The laws are now using the Socratic method to question Socrates himself and this hypothetical conversation helps Socrates to show Crito how important it is for Socrates to carry out a sentence and die for his crimes.
Instead of looking at the whole conversation, let’s look at something else. Stephen Nathanson, a philosophy professor, interprets this conversation in a different manner.
(a) The Parent Argument
(1) The state is Socrates’ parent.
(2) Everyone ought to obey his or her parents.
(3) If Socrates escapes, he will disobey his parent.
(4) Therefore, Socrates ought not to escape.
(b) The Benefactor Argument
(1) The state is Socrates’ benefactor.
(2) Everyone ought to obey his or her benefactors.
(3) If Socrates escapes, he will disobey his benefactor.
(4) Therefore, Socrates ought not to escape.
(c) The Agreement Argument
(1) Socrates made an agreement to obey the state.
(2) Everyone ought to keep his or her agreements.
(3) If Socrates escapes, he will violate an agreement.
(4) Therefore, Socrates ought not to escape.
All in all, as he has personified the laws, he says that breaking the laws would be equivalent to punishing the laws as if they were a person. Eventually, the answer to "but I escape from jail” is a plain no.
This marks the end of the Socratic Dialogue Crito. But, it would be an injustice to the creativity of Plato if I didn’t combine Crito and Phaedo to offer a more accurate conclusion.
Phaedo, just like Crito, is recalled by someone else and not witnessed by Plato himself so even though the philosophy within the text might be exciting to read, in the back of your mind, think that Socrates might not be acting as anything more than just a character.
Socrates asks his friends to take away his crying wife. He then says something very interesting about pleasure. He says “What a strange thing that which men call pleasure seems to be, and how astonishing the relation it has with what is thought to be its opposite, namely pain! A man cannot have both at the same time. Yet if he pursues and catches the one, he is almost always bound to catch the other also, like two creatures with one head.” He is referring to the feeling of pain and pleasure that he feels right after his legs are freed from shackles and he is allowed to move as it is his last day on this planet. He is talking about the pain and relief experienced simultaneously but as we’re here to philosophise, it is a pretty solid statement. See, here, Socrates isn’t trying to argue with someone or engaging in any discussion, he is actually creating. This is the kind of shift I have been talking about. Socrates, as I said before, acts as a character and so he is more of a medium of philosophising more than anything for Plato.
The theme of Phaedo that I believe is the core of the whole discussion is based on spirituality and the soul. There are several underlying concepts and in fact, I would even go so far as saying that it explores more deep and philosophical concepts than the Apology. Just talking about the Phaedo will take me at least 2 hours but is it going to be worth it? Not really. So let’s attack the most controversial of all themes in Phaedo: Immortality. Socrates says that the true philosophers of the world welcome death and accept it as they know that the soul is immortal. The Argument of the Opposites that Socrates presents says that Opposites come from opposites. Eg. Tall men come from short men. Similarly, Life comes from death and so death comes from life. Furthermore, he says, “Life can come from death only if the soul already exists without the body” and “The soul exists without the body only due to the death of a previous body.“ Therefore the soul exists after death. Now, the argument in itself is pretty shitty, to say the least. It’s ambiguous and I think professor G.J. Mattey pretty well:
If we suppose that a body was once dead and now lives, there is a sense in which life came to be from death. But there is no further reason to think that it became alive through its previous state of death. Indeed, later in the dialogue, Plato explains that opposites in fact recede at the approach of the other. Another problem is with the explanation of how life comes to be through death. The soul is said to have survived the death of a previous body to give life to the current one. So what came to be was life in one body through the death in a different body. But this is not what motivates the "opposites come from opposites" principle. Instead, it is the passing of opposite to opposite in the same thing. A child matures to become larger and stronger. But we do not generally explain the child's becoming larger by means of another child's becoming smaller.
There are multiple discourses that ensue during this time and multiple exchanges break and form simultaneously.
The final points which emerge out of this constant philosophising are:
The soul brings life to only that body into which it enters so if there is a body without a soul, it will not be alive.
A soulless body, however, is not dead per se. Therefore, a soulful body is not the opposite of a dead body.
The soul, therefore, never really dies.
To quote Game of Thrones, “what is dead may never die”
Though this, what is dead is indestructible.
The soul is an indestructible thing.
Although all this is quite fascinating on a spiritual and philosophical front and it may seem pretty logical but psychology has tons of proof to disregard almost all these points. What I'm trying to say is that these kind of dialogues are not the supreme authority on a certain field of study. However, these dialogues are still attributed for they took initiative and began a discourse on a certain field, which has resulted in the formation of more literature on those subjects.
Before parting by drinking the hemlock, Socrates’ last words were to Crito and he said: Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. What does this mean? Well, your connotation of a ‘cock’ might be very inappropriate but the actual meaning was quite different (By the way, he means a rooster when he says a cock). We tend to forget that Plato was not just a philosopher but also a playwright. Remember the charge against him in the Apology where he was termed an Atheist? To prove that he wasn’t an atheist, Plato put this line in the dialogue. If Socrates is really an atheist, would he really remember the debt he owes to God Asclepius? Also, Plato plays with his audience because Asclepius is the god of medicine so is Socrates thanking him for the hemlock that might liberate him from life and put his soul out its misery or is because his life was his disease and he is now being cured of it? I guess it’s left to our imagination.
Before I end this episode, I want you to think of what you imagine death would be like. What is the soul? It may as well have been Socrates’ version of our conscience but we all know that our conscience would die when we do. Again, maybe something that you’d like to question as you exit this podcast. Thank you for listening to this episode and I’ll see you guys in the next. Till then, keep Philosophising.
Resources:
Comments