Plato's Apology and Crito
The trial and confinement of Socrates
Preface
The Great Ideas Program is a ten volume companion to Great Books of the Western World. This set, which is best thought of as a guidebook, was published to help readers who are not part of an organized academic program get started with the Great Books. I described this set in more detail in a recent article that outlined the approach I am planning to take on my multi-year journey through the Great Books.
The title of the first volume is A General Introduction to the Great Books and to a Liberal Education. This volume has fifteen readings. The first reading covers Plato’s Apology and Crito. The guidebook provides an introduction to set the stage for readers who may have limited background knowledge about the historical setting.
After reading the introduction, I read the Apology and Crito. I then returned to the guidebook to consider several questions that are designed to act as prompts for further contemplation and study. A few days later, I reread the Apology and Crito slowly, took notes, and prepared answers to the questions. The process of reading the guidebook, doing a first read of the selection, considering the questions, and then undertaking a slower second reading seems like a good way to absorb the material.
In this article, I’ll first provide some general thoughts on the Apology and Crito before answering the questions posed in the guidebook. As I go through the remaining fourteen readings in the first volume of The Great Ideas Program, I plan to write similar articles primarily to make sure that I understand the reading fully. The process of publishing my thoughts in public should raise the bar when it comes to the quality of my answers and will hopefully be of interest to readers as well.
Introduction
Socrates has long been regarded as one of the most important founders of Western philosophy. While it is best to go to primary sources to discover what a philosopher actually thought, this is not possible in the case of Socrates since he left no writings. All we know about Socrates comes from accounts of his philosophy written by others.
Unlike Socrates, Plato has left us with a very large body of work, and much of it is presented in the form of dialogues involving Socrates. In these dialogues, Socrates is speaking to us, but indirectly through the mind of Plato.
As Mortimer J. Adler and Peter Wolff point out in A General Introduction to the Great Books, it is up to us to “distinguish between Socrates and Plato as historical persons.” Plato knew Socrates very well and was one of his most eminent students. However, Plato was only twenty-nine years old in 399 B.C. when Socrates was condemned to death. Following the execution of his teacher, Plato lived nearly another half century. We cannot regard Plato’s dialogues as mere “transcripts” and must realize that his own philosophical ideas were communicated through Socrates and other characters.
With these warnings in mind, it is fascinating to read Plato’s Apology and Crito which provide accounts of the trial of Socrates and his reaction to being sentenced to death. In the Apology, Socrates presents an impassioned defense against the charges brought against him, calling out his accusers as liars in forceful terms and justifying his overall conduct in life. In Crito, Socrates refuses all offers to help him escape from prison and avoid death because doing so would bring dishonor to his reputation. After a full life of over seven decades, Socrates freely chose death over dishonor, escape and exile.
If you find this article interesting, please click on the ❤️️ button and consider sharing it with your friends or on social media.
Thanks for reading!
Apology
The Apology of Socrates is not an expression of remorse as the word apology is used in contemporary conversations. Instead, this apology is Socrates’ defense against charges brought against him. Indeed, Socrates is quite unapologetic as we would use the word in a modern conversation. His defense is extremely impassioned and forceful.
The dialogue starts with Socrates opening his defense. We are not presented with an indictment or the prosecution’s case but instead learn of the nature of the charges through the course of the dialogue. Socrates emphasizes that while his accusers have presented a polished legal argument, he will speak plainly within the confines of his limited eloquence. Since this is his first appearance in court in his long life of over seventy years, he claims ignorance when it comes to the conventions of legal orations.
Socrates expresses frustration with what he calls old charges, protesting that he does not even know the names of his accusers and feels like he “must simply fight with shadows in my own defense, and argue when there is no one who answers.”
Socrates sums up the old charges against him as follows:
“Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others.”
While admitting to possessing a certain degree of what we might call worldly wisdom, Socrates denies that he possesses the “superhuman” wisdom which is claimed by others. In an attempt to disprove the notion that he is the wisest of men, Socrates decided to interview men who appeared to be wiser than him. He went to a politician well known for great wisdom, but upon actually talking to the man, realized that he was not really wise at all. Rather than keep his own counsel, Socrates proceeded to inform the politician that he was not really wise. Predictably, this created an enemy.
“I am better off than he is, — for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.”
So, Socrates went on a mission to go to all men “who appear to know” and to examine them. He found “that the men most in repute were “all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better.” He also found that men who did have specialized skills in one area, such as poetry, fancied themselves to be experts in unrelated areas. In other words, they did not know the limits of their knowledge.
Predictably, Socrates failed to make many friends among the powerful and esteemed men who he took it upon himself to examine for the presence of real wisdom.
“This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others; but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.”
To sum up the first part of the defense, Socrates denies that he claims any special wisdom and, to the extent that he is “wise”, it is because he knows the limits of his wisdom. To borrow a phrase from today’s investing world, Socrates knew the edge of his “circle of competence” and, therefore, was able to avoid pitfalls others fell into.
To make matters worse for Socrates, he was often surrounded by wealthy young men who “have not much to do” and enjoyed seeing supposedly “wise” men exposed as charlatans. One can imagine these young men departing from Socrates and imitating his examinations with older members of their own family or perhaps other people in positions of authority. Naturally, this caused the elites to dislike Socrates even more.
The newer charges against Socrates have to do with his alleged rejection of the gods of Athens. Socrates engages Meletus, his principal accuser, in a dialogue. Meletus reiterates his charge that Socrates is a “complete atheist” and that he corrupts the youth of Athens by urging them to stray from religion. Meletus suggests that every Athenian “improves and elevates” the young with the exception of Socrates, an absolutist and absurd statement. Meletus further alleges that Socrates is doing so intentionally, not simply because he is mistaken on philosophical matters.
Socrates rebuts the allegation of atheism by pointing out that Meletus has charged him with believing in “divine and spiritual agencies”, and that such entities are impossible without the existence of the gods. Socrates cannot possibly believe in demigods and spirits without acknowledging the existence of gods and therefore he could not be a complete atheist. Meletus seems to be at a loss for words at this point.
With the old and new charges rebutted, at least in Socrates’ mind, he moves on to assert that doing the right thing is more important than living a lie, and that he would rather risk death than live in dishonor.
“For the fear of death is indeed the pretense of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a pretense of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which men in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.”
Returning to his point about knowing what he does not know, Socrates reasons that he would rather avoid something he knows to be evil, that is, losing his integrity, rather than to avoid death since he does not know whether death is good or evil. As a result, he refuses to change his ways if acquitted.
“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 …”
Socrates refuses to beg for acquittal by promising to stop the activities that have upset his enemies. To do so would be to live in disgrace. Furthermore, killing Socrates would injure Athens more than it would injure Socrates. Socrates says that he is a gift from God to the Athenians and killing him would be sinning against God. God has sent Socrates to Athens as a “gadfly” to be attached to the state, speaking truth to power, and Athens will not easily find a replacement. The proof of Socrates’ good faith is that he neglected his own affairs in service to the state.
Perhaps foreseeing the inevitable, Socrates says that he will not act as defendants who beg for mercy and parade their families into court in an attempt to gain sympathy.
“One who has reached my years, and who has a name for wisdom, ought not to demean himself. Whether this opinion of me be deserved or not, at any rate the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men. And if those among you who are said to be superior in wisdom and courage, and any other virtue, demean themselves in this way, how shameful is their conduct!”
Unsurprisingly, Socrates fails to convince the court and he is found guilty of the charges. However, the vote was closer than expected. The proposed penalty is death but Socrates is given the opportunity to argue for an alternate punishment. He could choose to argue for a financial penalty or for exile.
After what I take to be a sarcastic rant in which Socrates argues that his “penalty” should be to be to receive the honors due to a respected citizen of Athens, Socrates again refuses to beg for his life. In the ancient world, exile was often thought of as a fate worse than death, which is certainly Socrates’ opinion:
“… I must indeed be blinded by the love of life, if I am so irrational as to expect that when you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you will have no more of them, others are likely to endure me. No indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. And what a life I should lead, at my age, wandering from city to city, ever changing my place of exile, and always being driven out! For I am quite sure that wherever I go, there, as here, the young men will flock to me; and if I drive them away, their elders will drive me out at their request; and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their sakes.”
So Socrates is damned if he engages in philosophy and damned if he doesn’t. Either way, he will be driven out of any place where he seeks exile. It is at this point that Socrates makes his famous statement that the unexamined life is not worth living.
Socrates finally proposes a fine of a mina which is all he can pay, or at the most thirty minae which could be collected from friends. One mina was equivalent to 100 drachmas, and it is unclear exactly what this would translate into in modern currency. One writer estimates that one mina is worth about $4,500. Thirty minae would be worth about $135,000. Whatever the value of the offer, it was ultimately rejected.
After being sentenced to death, Socrates offers a final statement to the people of Athens. He opens with a reiteration of his view that it is far better to face death than dishonor and then expands upon his general view of the nature of death which is worth some serious consideration. Socrates is not at all convinced that death is evil.
“Either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king will not find many such days or nights, when compared to the others. Now, if death be of such a nature, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night.”
But what if death is a migration of the soul to another world? If so, Socrates looks forward to examining the inhabitants of that world just as he did during his life! He will have the opportunity to compare his sufferings with the righteous men of the past and continue his quest into true and false knowledge. In other words, his intellectual pursuits could continue even after his death.
“In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions: assuredly not. For besides being happier than we are, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.”
Socrates concludes by saying that he is not angry with his condemners although he notes that they sought to do him harm and “gently” rebukes them for it. The time for his defense is over and Socrates accepts his fate. He has one final request of the citizens of Athens. He asks that they look out for his three sons and correct them if they seem to care more about wealth than virtue or if they claim false wisdom.
Crito
Socrates had many enemies but also maintained a large group of friends and followers after he was sentenced to death. Crito was one of Socrates’ closest friends and was a contemporary in terms of age and background. Shortly before Socrates is executed, Crito visits him in prison which is the scene of this dialogue.
Crito arrives at the prison early in the morning and is amazed to find Socrates sleeping peacefully as if he had not a care in the world. Knowing that waking Socrates would bring him pain by making him aware of his surroundings and fate, Crito allows him to sleep and just watches him for some time.
Socrates finally wakes up and assures Crito that he feels no distress about his death, wondering why a man should be fearful of death who has reached his advanced age. The only question is precisely when the death sentence will be carried out, although it is sure to happen within a few days. But is death inevitable? Crito doesn’t think so. He knows that it would be possible to secure Socrates’ escape if he can only get his friend to agree to the plan. Crito is motivated by not wanting to lose a friend. But he also has selfish motives. Crito fears that he will be blamed if Socrates is executed since people might think that he was not willing to spend money to facilitate an escape.
Socrates points out that there is no particular reason to care about what people think. Good men will understand what took place. Crito persists, pointing out that others are also ready to spend money to help Socrates escape. Furthermore, Crito assures Socrates that he will be welcome outside of Athens. Specifically, Crito has friends in Thessaly who would welcome Socrates into their community. Finally, Crito tells Socrates that accepting death would mean abandoning his children, two of whom are minors, and goes as far as to say that he is ashamed of a man who would voluntarily leave his own children to the goodwill of others.
Socrates reiterates his determination to adhere to the principles upon which he lived his life but is open to Crito arguing for “other and better principles” which might justify an escape. However, this certainly cannot be based on a consideration of the opinion of the majority of men and what they might think about Socrates or Crito.
“… 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 what the truth 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.”
Socrates goes on to denounce the justification of committing an evil in response to an evil. One must not do wrong even in response to a wrong. Socrates has been unjustly convicted and sentenced to die, but to escape from the laws of Athens, even if unjustly applied, would be to do grave injury to the state. Socrates does not believe that a state can exist “in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and trampled upon by individuals.” In Socrates’ mind, an escape would contribute to the destruction of the state. He owes the state for his existence, much like he owes his own father and mother who brought him into the world, and is therefore bound by its laws.
The right of emigration is a key part of Socrates’ thinking. He lived his entire life in Athens and understood its laws. By staying, he implicitly agreed to adhere to the law. At no point was he stopped from emigrating with all of his property. He could have done so at any time without penalty. No laws of Athens would have stopped this.
Far from attempting to emigrate, Socrates almost never left Athens except when he was in military service. He was content to spend all of his time in the city and therefore implicitly acquiesced to the government that was in place.
Perhaps the most important point that Socrates makes is that he could have asked to be exiled at trial. This would have been granted if he had made the request but he refused to. If he now escapes from prison after being sentenced to death, it would show that his refusal to request exile at trial was not sincere but was for show. He would be accused of wanting it both ways: to appear as a principled man in public but to do the exact opposite when death was imminent.
Socrates would rather be remembered as a victim of men rather than a victim of laws. He does not want to be remembered as someone who committed evil against his state. Speaking from the perspective of the city of Athens, Socrates makes his final argument against escaping:
“Now you depart in innocence, as a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of 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 whom 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.”
Socrates asks if Crito has anything to say in rebuttal to his arguments. Crito has nothing to say, and the dialogue ends.
Questions
The following questions were posed at the end of the first reading in Volume 1 of The Great Ideas Program. I have provided my informal answers to the questions in this section. Obviously, some of the answers are subjective matters of opinion, as they are intended to be in the context of the guidebook. The purpose of posing questions is to act as prompts for further discussion.
Should an unjust law be obeyed?
All states are capable of instituting unjust laws. Democracies are in no way exempt from this danger. This was true during the life of Socrates and it is equally true in our own times. The question, then, is whether a citizen has a duty to obey the law even if he believes it to be unjust. When is it permissible to disregard a law rather than to engage in the political process required to change it officially?
It is easy to say that all laws must be obeyed in a democracy, but this ignores the potential of tyranny of the majority. Even in the United States, which has a carefully designed system intended to protect minority interests, there can be clearly unjust laws that persist for long periods of time. Racial segregation is one common example.
Conscientious objection to certain laws has a long history. Civil disobedience does not seem to be wrong in all cases. It is difficult to argue that conscientious objection to an unjust law imposes irreparable harm on the state. For example, violating segregation laws in the 1950s and 1960s brought about public awareness that led to a more just society, at least in the eyes of the vast majority of American living today.
A key point when it comes to disobedience is that one must be willing to suffer the penalty. Attempting to escape the penalty is dishonorable. Putting skin in the game is honorable and could bring about change. Evading responsibility is dishonorable.
What can be done when a law is unjustly applied?
A just law may be unjustly applied in individual circumstances. This is an inevitable outcome in any society. In the United States, trial by jury of our peers is a right, but much can still go wrong. Juries can be selected unfairly, evidence can be presented in a slanted manner, evidence can be manufactured, and legal representation can be flawed. So, there is no guarantee that laws will always be justly applied.
One can argue that Socrates was unjustly convicted but he was convicted by a jury of his peers. His arguments failed to convince the men who sat in judgment. He chose to react with equanimity and accept his fate gracefully. Socrates had lived a long life and thought that it would be crazy to trade his honor for a few additional years. One wonders whether he might have thought the same way if he had been much younger when brought to trial. I suspect that he would have.
Those who oppose the death penalty often do so on the grounds that it is an irreversible penalty. If evidence comes to light in the future that exonerates the accused, the sentence cannot be undone. However, the same can be said for incarceration. If a man is convicted of murder at the age of twenty and sits in prison for fifty years before being exonerated, he emerges at the age of seventy. He has effectively lost what his life could have been.
There seems to be no perfect solution for this question.
What are a citizen’s duties and responsibilities when a law is not duly made?
Looking at our system at the federal level, laws are supposed to be made by Congress, signed by the President and subject to judicial review if suspected of being unconstitutional. However, in practice, many “laws” are made through the regulatory process by executive level agencies that are subject to limited oversight. The President may also issue a wide variety of executive orders of dubious constitutionality.
Contemporary American politics often boils down to the ends justifying the means. One side of the political divide cheers when the President issues an executive order accomplishing something they favor while the other side decries it. A few years later, the tables turn and the supporters and critics of executive action are flipped around.
The founding fathers of the United States grappled with the difficulties of establishing a Republic that scales well as it increases in size. Democracy in a small city-state is far less complex than in the United States of the twenty-first century. It seems overwhelming for any citizen today to object in a productive manner when laws are not properly made, aside from running for office himself.
In the United States today, far too much power resides at the federal level rather than at state and local levels. The principle of subsidiarity has been all but abandoned. By concentrating power at the highest and most remote level, individual citizens have little power to bring about change.
Was Socrates justified in disobeying an explicit command, because it was unjust?
Socrates is sometimes accused of contradicting himself. In the Apology, he appears to agree with the concept of disobeying unjust orders yet in Crito, he accedes to his death sentence by stating that he must prove his obedience to the law.
It boils down to context. Socrates refused to obey what he considered to be unjust orders but he did so knowing that he would be held accountable. Much of the Apology amounts to a defense of his actions, which he did not consider illegal, but at no point does he attempt to evade accountability imposed by the judgement of his peers.
In Crito, Socrates refuses to break the law by escaping but this is consistent with his acceptance of the consequences of his actions. By putting his own skin in the game, Socrates acts with honor. He is accused of breaking the law and accepts the penalty.
In what sense was Socrates a wise man?
In the Apology, Socrates claims that he is a wise man only in the sense that he knows the limits of his knowledge. In contrast, the charlatans that he exposes claim to have wisdom but are really “empty suits.” The question is whether this type of “negative” wisdom is truly wisdom. Adler and Wolff point out that a mere skeptic who doubts that anything is true could claim wisdom, but this is really ignorance and obtuseness.
In my opinion, knowing the limits of your knowledge is perhaps one of the most important forms of wisdom. It is similar to the concept of inversion that Charlie Munger always spoke about. Rather than thinking about what we know, we should think first about the limits of our circle of competence. By not acting in areas where we know that we are ignorant, we avoid many problems in life.
Obviously, it is also important to have “positive” wisdom — and Socrates seems to have much of this type of wisdom as well when it comes to citizenship, ethics, and the law. Socrates might be somewhat falsely modest in his characterization of his own intellect. He did not gain the reputation as the most important founder of Western philosophical thought simply by knowing what he did not know.
How do you interpret the statement “The unexamined life is not worth living”?
This is perhaps the most famous saying of Socrates. I have purposely not read what others have to say about it and base my response principally on the dialogues.
By “an examined life”, Socrates means that one should have a lifelong attitude of asking questions about the world and our place in it. His dialogues are intended to probe deeply into areas of supposed knowledge and he made sport of exposing charlatans and fools. Of course, doing this ultimately cost him his life.
Too many people go through life on autopilot. I am sure this was as true in the fifth century B.C. as it is now. We go through life like robots, repeating rituals and going through the motions without really thinking about why we are doing these things or what the greater purpose might be. This seems to be the essence of an unexamined life. The answer to living an examined life, then, is to do the opposite by being conscious of larger questions. This is my main motivation for reading the Great Books.
Copyright, Disclosures, and Privacy Information
Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice and all content is subject to the copyright and disclaimer policy of The Rational Walk LLC. The Rational Walk is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.