Plato: Five Dialogues
Join now to read essay Plato: Five Dialogues
Plato: Five Dialogues
The Dialogues start out with the entrance of Socrates who was traveling to King Archeons court for he was under indictment by a character named Meletus for corrupting the youth and not obeying city appointed gods. Socrates, the protagonist of the Dialogues, is characterized to be a very simple man, not having many material possessions and speaking in a plain, conversational manner. However, his plainness is all a part of the Socratic method. The Socratic method in the plainest terms is answering a question with a question. Socrates through the Dialogue professes his own ignorance, he would engage in conversation with someone claiming to be an expert, usually in ethical matters. By asking simple questions, Socrates would gradually reveal that his counterpart was in fact very confused and did not know anything about the matter that he claimed to be an expert in.
Euthyphro is the antagonist of the first dialogue and the first to understand how much he doesnt really know. Euthyphro is portrayed as an orthodox and a very religious man, believing that he knows everything there is to know about holy matters. He often makes prophecies to others, and who has brought his father to trial on a questionable murder charge. He took his father to court because his father had allowed one of his workers to die without proper care and attention. The worker had killed a slave belonging to the family estate, and Euthyphros father had let him die bound and gagged. Socrates expresses his astonishment at the confidence of a young man able to take his own father to court on such a serious charge. In what may be perceived as a true Socratic student/teacher fashion, Socrates believes that Euthyphro must first have a clear understanding of what is holy and unholy. Socrates sets the trap for Euthyphro by describing himself as someone who is facing a charge of lack bof holiness, by not worshipping state approved gods, and is unclear what holiness is, he hopes to learn from Euthyphro.
The definition that Euthyphro believes equates what is holy with what is approved of by the gods. Socrates counter argument shows that his definition is insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, then their approval cannot be what makes it holy. Alternatively, if it is holy because the gods approve of it, then we still dont know for what reason the gods approve of it. It seems that any attempt to ground our definition of holiness in the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. We might normally associate holiness with some sort of divine will.
The Apology is the version of the speech given by Socrates as he defends himself against the charges of being a man “who corrupted the young, did not believe in the gods, and created new deities”. “Apology” here has its earlier meaning of a formal defense of a cause or of ones beliefs or actions.
Socrates explains that his behavior stems from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi, which claimed that he was the wisest of all men. Recognizing his ignorance in most worldly affairs, Socrates concluded that he must be wiser than other men only in that he knows that he doesnt know anything. In order to spread his newly discovered wisdom, he considered it his duty to question supposed “wise” men and to expose their false wisdom as ignorance. These activities earned him much admiration amongst the youth of Athens, but much hatred and anger from the people he embarrassed. He cites their contempt as the reason for his being put on trial.
Socrates is found guilty by a narrow margin and is asked to propose a penalty. He rejects the idea of imprisonment or exile, offering perhaps instead to pay a fine. When the jury rejects his suggestion and sentences him to death. He warns the jurymen who voted against him that in silencing their critic rather than listening to him, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.
The Crito is a dialogue between Socrates and his follower the rich Athenian Crito, regarding the source and nature of political obligation. Set after Platos Apology, in which Socrates was sentenced to death for charges of corrupting the young and for impiety, Crito tries in this dialogue to convince Socrates to escape his imprisonment and go into exile.
One of Critos strongest arguments in favor of escape is when he suggests that Socrates would be furthering the wrongdoing of his enemies in following through with their wishes. Socrates reply to this argument is that he would in fact be harming the Laws, which are just and if the Laws are just and the people are unjust, but both are willing the same thing, then it seems as if Socrates is caught. If Socrates stays in prison, he will be siding with his unjust accusers, and if he escapes he will be acting against