Three Points of View on Socrates' Trial: Analyzing The Sources

Plato, a prominent Greek philosopher of the 4th century BC, in his works Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, tells the story of his teacher’s, Socrates, trial and subsequent death as a result of it. Socrates, often thought of as one of, if not the wisest of the Greek philosophers, laid the groundwork for much of modern Western philosophy on life, ethics, law, and diplomacy, and is almost entirely known today through the writings of his students, especially those by Plato and Xenophon. In many of Plato’s works about Socrates, there is a certain Socratic Irony, in which Socrates puts on a facade of ignorance, in order to extract nonsensical arguments from his interlocutors, as well as elenchus, or cross-examination. In Euthyphro, Plato shows a discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro, one of the judges who oversees religious law, in which Socrates uses Socratic Irony and elenchus to prove that his friend cannot clearly define what holy is, and through questioning spins Euthyphro's arguments in circles. Plato’s next work, Apology, shows Socrates in his trial, where he argues against the notion that he is corrupting the youth of Athens and that he has invented new gods while refusing to accept the ones that exist. Unsuccessful in his trial for a multitude of reasons, Plato’s Crito begins with Socrates in his prison cell awaiting his eventual execution. He is approached by his friend Crito, who insists Socrates flee, as an escape from the prison would be easy, and he could live comfortably with wealthy friends outside of Athens. Socrates refuses, however, believing that to escape from prison and break the laws that he has so adamantly defended in the past would contradict all of his teachings and would destroy his way of life. While there are contradictions between Plato’s Crito and Euthyphro and Apology, especially in Socrates’s thoughts on the afterlife and why Socrates is wise, the teachings of Crito are compatible with those of Euthyphro and Apology, as there is consistency in Socrates belief in how a philosopher should live his life, what is virtuous, that one must think carefully, moderately, and reasonably, that wisdom is good while ignorance is evil, and that the laws are for the good of the citizen and the state as a whole.

There are contradictions between what is taught in Crito compared to what is taught in Euthyphro and Apology, but these contradictions do not make the whole work incompatible with the other two. One such inconsistency is Socrates's view on the afterlife and what a man can know about it. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates has a clear idea that his soul is immortal and that his death will simply free his soul to return to its proper place, as was foretold by the beautiful woman in his dream (Crito, 44b). He also believes that by escaping from prison he would be condemned and punished in Hades, so it would be better to accept his punishment on his mortal body as opposed to his immortal soul. In Apology, however, Socrates claims to have no knowledge what happens after death, believing that no man can, but simply reasons that he should not fear it, that a man at his age, (he is seventy at the time of his trial), should embrace it, as it can only be one of two things: annihilation, a deep rest from which we will not awaken, or a transmigration of the soul to another world (Apology, 41d). Plato, always speaking fondly of Socrates and not wanting to portray him as inconsistent, appears to make the argument that with Socrates time coming to a close he has gained greater vision into the supernatural and surreal, and therefore is able to draw the conclusion that death is a transmigration, not an annihilation, that the soul is immortal and his will simply move to where it belongs when it is freed from his body.

Another contradiction between Crito and Euthyphro and Apology is whether or not Socrates has expertise in any field at all, or whether his wisdom simply comes from his ability to expose ignorance and his knowledge that he has no expertise of his own. In Euthyphro, Socrates uses Socratic Irony, claiming to have no expertise or arguments to make on religious matters, and in Apology, Socrates also claims to have no expertise in any field and no special knowledge of anything, he simply exposes the ignorance of his interlocutors through elenchus (Apology, 23b). Socrates in Crito, however, speaks of “the arguments which I used to expound in the past” (Crito, 46b), which directly contradicts his previous statements that he has no expertise of his own, therefore he has no arguments to make and simply wishes to expose weak arguments for their ignorance. While this may be a significant self-contradiction by Socrates, or by Plato’s quoting of Socrates, it does not take away from the compatibility of the works. Socrates is renowned for his work in the field of ethics, and his claim that he has no expertise in anything could be seen as use of Socratic Irony.

Plato’s teachings through Socrates in Crito are consistent with many of the teachings in Euthyphro and Apology, one of which is how Socrates believes a philosopher should live his life. In Apology, Socrates is firm in his famed statement that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” According to Socrates in Apology, to truly be virtuous and live a good life, one must question himself and his peers, that a man’s life can only have true meaning and value if he strives to know and understand himself. Socrates believes that Apollo chose him as the wisest of all men so that he could question others who claim to have great knowledge, and show them that their wisdom is only as great as their acceptance of their own ignorance (Apology, 22c). In Crito, he makes a similar argument when explaining why he cannot escape from prison. He would have to live in exile in unlawful land, where he would be unable to practice his philosophical discourse, and unable to do the just work that he believes Apollo requests from him. If he were to escape and live in exile, he would be unable to question his life and others aloud, and therefore he would not see himself fit to live (Crito, 52a) .

Another consistency in the works is Socrates belief that to be virtuous he must be just, and while his definition of what is just is put into question by Crito, Socrates keeps consistent with his what he believes is just and unjust. He also consistently holds throughout Apology and Crito that people do not act unjustly on purpose, but instead do so out of ignorance. Socrates first displays this belief in Apology, in which he makes the argument that if he were harming society he would be harming himself, and he has no reason to harm himself so if he truly does harm he must do so out of ignorance, not out of malintent (Apology, 25b). When Crito makes the argument to Socrates that he was tried unjustly, and therefore not attempting an escape would be unjust and purposefully harmful to himself, Socrates makes the counter argument that simply breaking the law would be unjust and a contradiction to himself. Since he will not act unjustly on purpose, Socrates argues, the only way that he can avoid his execution is by persuading his personified Laws to change their ruling, not by outright defying them.

In Euthyphro and Apology, Plato shows a clear maliciousness towards Socrates executioners, as he describes Meletus in an unflattering light, calling him an “unknown” and describing his ugly features. Crito argues that by not defying his unjust trial, Socrates is giving into his enemies will while leaving his friends and sons behind, which would be an unjust act. Plato helps show Socrates thought process by personifying the Laws of Athens, who help Socrates reach the conclusion that he must accept his punishment or convince the Laws to change it. This shows how escaping from prison would not be breaking his agreement with his enemies, but would be breaking his agreement with the Laws of Athens, which in the past he so adamantly defended. Socrates argues that if he were to break the law, not only would it be hypocritical, but it would show that Socrates believes himself above the law, and if this mindset were to spread to his peers then society as a whole would collapse (Crito, 52a). Therefore, Socrates argues that by accepting his execution he is acting justly and in the best interest of the state, his friends and his sons. There is an argument to be made that since the Laws were used unjustly by the jurors of Athens, breaking them would only serve to correct the injustice done. A counter argument to this would be that the Laws are unwavering and inflexible, and since trial is part of the Laws, if one is found guilty by trial than they are guilty according to the Laws. No matter if Socrates was tried unjustly, he is still guilty according to the Laws, and breaking the Laws of Athens would be an unjust breakage of an agreement that he made when he became a citizen of Athens.

While Socrates’s death mostly comes as a result of his own stubbornness, as he refuses to apologize for any of the crimes he is accused of, refuses to give an alternate penalty besides death, and refuses to escape from prison, his stubbornness gives his teachings all the more credibility, and allows him to die a martyr in the city that he held so dear. Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito are compatible with one another because Socrates stays consistent with his beliefs and what he wants his peers to learn from his trial and death. Socrates gives a model for a true philosopher, which in Greek means “lover of wisdom,” which no one can argue Socrates was not. Until the end Socrates does what he believes is just and sound. Throughout the works he compares himself to heroes such as those in The Illiad and Hercules, even arguing that he should not be punished by death but instead rewarded with feasts fit for Olympic champions. Socrates is not like those heroes, however, he is something else, because while heroic feats allow viewers to bask in the glory and perfection of the human body, Socrates’s teachings allow them to strive for perfection in themselves.