Dialogues of Plato: Crito

One of the most significant aspects of Classical Greece inherited by the modern world was the work of philosophers. These men catalyzed a new way of thinking, one that delves into deeper levels of contemplation. One such philosopher was Socrates, who's analytical thoughts were based solely off of pure reason without personal bias or pressures of society to influence the thought process. Often times, Socrates would engage in conversation with others about his philosophies in such a way that the listener would feel trapped and begin to doubt his own personal views. These dialogues, recorded by Plato, his apprentice, survived through the ages and are studied extensively today. Specifically, a dialogue between Socrates and Crito spawned a great deal of moral and social issues which are still widely debated today.

During the time of Socrates (c. 470 - 399 B.C.E.), the Greeks were relatively lenient in terms of freedom of thought and practice, as long as there was no uprising. However, Socrates stepped outside of the boundaries when he began staging his famous dialogues with other people. The higher powers of Athens felt that his openness of ideas was corrupting the youth, so he was sentenced to death. Crito then enters the plot and attempts to convince Socrates to escape from prison and flee Athens rather than face inevitable death. However, Socrates refuses. Crito then explains an ulterior motive that drives him so hard: if Socrates dies, not only does Crito lose a dear friend, but his reputation with the general public would be tainted. Because not many were aware of the relationship between the two men, the public would think that Crito could have used monetary coercion to free Socrates from prison, but decided against it because the life of Socrates was not worth the economic investment.

In response, Socrates claims that the opinions of the general public do not matter, for they are biased and dogmatic. Only a select few are worthy of attention, the ones who have knowledge of both the just and unjust and can present an argument based solely on facts and reason without letting biases and opinions cloud their judgment. However, Socrates' argument is flawed, at least partially. While it is logical to only accept the judgments of the wise, it is not advisable to dismiss those deemed unwise entirely. Socrates said himself, albeit indirectly, that the general population is unwise, therefore, the ratio of wise to unwise people is drastically skewed in favor of the unwise. That means, in turn, that the biased-who Socrates claims should be ignored-have a great deal of influence due to their vast numbers. Logically, the more friends one has, the better off they will be because they have more support. Socrates, however, proposes that it is advisable to limit friends to those of high quality rather than taking a quantitative approach.

Socrates was in the correct realm of thinking, for it is true that the opinions and advice of the unwise should be ignored, because they do not have a solid foundation of reason for their arguments, thus cannot be factored into the equation when making decisions. However, nonetheless, it is critical to appease the unwise, whether their arguments are taken into account or not. It is difficult to accomplish anything with limited numbers of supporters. Take the modern-day presidential election for example. Whether one man deems the general population of voters over the age of 18 wise and unbiased or not, they are allowed to vote. Therefore, the opinions of the unwise play a major role in the outcome of the election. Should a presidential candidate restrict his campaign to those who he deems wise, then he loses the support of the vast majority of voters and will most likely not win the election. The candidate must at least give the illusion of taking the unwise into consideration to maintain support. While this type of disingenuity may be considered immoral by the standards of Socrates, it encapsulates the view of 15^th century political philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli: the end result justifies the means. Although the process in achieving the ultimate result may be slightly less than moral, the end product far outweighs those immoralities and is therefore justification for those actions.

Socrates later explains his reason for not wanting to escape from prison. He considers bribing for his release immoral, because it bypasses the law, thus he would be committing an act of evil. In the summarized words of Socrates, it is more scrupulous to allow oneself to die than to live on with an evil soul. Using that logic, Socrates would be doing a service to himself and others around him by dying as a morally just man. Once again, however, there is a flaw in his reasoning. Who is to say that the men condemning Socrates to death are not unjust themselves? If that were the case, then Socrates would be basing his actions off of the words of the unwise, which completely contradicts his previous argument. That would justify the decision to escape from prison and flee Athens, because he said himself that the views of the unwise are not to be taken into account. In this case, his death sentence is their view and is therefore unjust, thus needs to be ignored. It is the deeply rooted thoughts of Socrates and other Greek philosophers that have ushered in a new age of intense contemplation and higher levels of thinking. Through the writings of Plato, the modern world has been able to extract the beliefs of Socrates and analyze them to a great extent. Many of the moral and social arguments made by him are still profound topics of discussion today, ones that still remain unresolved. However, perhaps it is not the ideas themselves that have impacted the modern world the most, but rather the institution of more involved thought processes that keep the human race from becoming complacent and settling into a mental rut.