What Is The Relationship Between Apology And The Crito

Based on the two statements Socrates had made in the Apology and the Crito, we find that there is an obvious contradiction between them. On one side, Socrates says that he would still philosophize even though the jury wanted him not to; on the other side, he states that we shouldn’t challenge the law since it gives us everything. However, I think it is possible to reconcile the two views since one view is from his own perspective and another view is from the citizens’ perspective. In the next few paragraphs, I will analyze the concepts of the problem, offer my own analysis, and make counter arguments for my opinions. To begin with, it is necessary to understand the context of the problem. From the textbook, we know that “When he was over 70, Socrates was accused before the Athenian assembly of impiety and corrupting the young, and was sentenced to death” (WP X.1). In the Apology, Socrates claims that if the
Although Socrates thinks the laws cannot be disobeyed, they still don’t block him from pursuing philosophy, therefore, there could be two contradictory statements existing at the same time. I think it is all about choice and value. For Socrates, he chooses to die and fulfills Apollo’s duty instead of obeying the laws. He absolutely knows that he was born to obey the rules, and he states that every citizen must do so. However, facing the choice between philosophy and the laws, he chose philosophy. I think the goal he made the two views is to tell people if there is something which worth you to contribute your whole life to it, you are able to disobey the laws. Another illustration of Socrates’s arguments is: since to philosophize is to know how to die, Socrates decides to face the unknown things after death. If Socrates didn’t accept the acquittal from the court, and if he didn’t continue philosophizing while he was released, then he didn’t disobey the