Introduction
Socrates is one of the legends in the Greek academic history and his legacy is explained in the elaborative works of his disciple Plato. Plato’s writings about various aspects of Socrates give the academicians of the world a platform to understand how Socrates developed his moral values and epistemology. However, Socrates’ viewpoint towards accepting the decision of the jury in two of Plato’s finest works name 'Crito' and 'Apology' sound rather polemic to most of the philosophers in the world and they term it as Socrates’ hypocrisy. The story of Apology told by Socrates at his trial explains the role and importance of money, politics, and justice in the life Athenians while he condemns the prejudiced decision of the jury (Kreeft, 2005, p.82). Crito, on the other hand, is a story where Socrates convinced his friend to accept the law of Athens as a human who expected all people to respect and uphold the sanctity of Athenian law. He also convinced his friend for accepting the jury decision of unjust execution and embracing it as a part of his moral responsibility towards the city of Athens. This essay tends to examine how Socrates posed a self-contradictory philosophy regarding his stand towards the sanctity of jury in Athens in the two works named Crito and Athens.
Socrates philosophy towards justice in ‘Crito’
In Plato’s work ‘Crito’ it is clearly evident that Socrates had a very stern stance towards a conscious disdain expressed on his part to accept the sanctity of law. As per the text of Crito, Crito, who was an old friend of Socrates came to his prison and provoked him to escape from the prison using his aid (Brickhouse and Smith, 2004, p. 241). The story presents Crito as a wealthy friend of Socrates who was defiled in nature and proposed a bribe for the guards who were stationed at the prison monitoring duty so that can ignore Socrates escaping the hemlock prison. At that time, Socrates conscientiously disapproved Crito’s offer many times. He also presented his rationale for the act of escaping prison because of him fearing the death because he assumed the fear of death to be an immensely vast subject which couldn’t be mastered in one’s life. In fact, Socrates refuted Crito’s offer by explaining to him that accepting a proposal to escape the prison will make him a hypocrite who escaped the prison with an impersonation of a knower of the fear of death (Brickhouse and Smith, 2004, p. 241).
So, Socrates’ definition of hypocrite was more of a person who pretended about knowing a thing or at when he actually was not at all aware of it. It was rather self-defamatory for Socrates to accept the offer and set an example for others that he had full knowledge related to the fear of death in spite of the fact that he himself kept teaching the other people regarding the importance knowing an entity through its entire discourse. Thus, in order to save his identity from getting named as Hypocrite, he turned down Crito’s offer of escaping the prison by bribing the guards (Brickhouse and Smith, 2004, p. 242).
Socrates philosophy towards justice in ‘Apology’
Socrates laid the foundation of the philosophy of wisdom by behaving as per the standard conscientious call of being epistemologically sound regarding a subject and then acting on the basis of the command over that subject. However, it is true that the true paradox between Socrates’ philosophies of wisdom and his hypocrisy can be testified by his outlook expressed in Plato’s work name ‘Apology’. The 'Apology' is a narrative account of Socrates’ trial in which Metetus claims to guide the people of Athens by explaining how the theories and practice were basically corruptible (Szabados and Soifer, 2004, p.315). He also accused Socrates of deliberately corrupting the youth of Athens by teaching them the immoral aspects of epistemology. The Apology stands as a flawed explanation of the statement given by Socrates at the instance of his court trial in which he was blamed for ignoring the presence of accepted Gods in the Athens, for devising new entities as idols of worship and for corrupting the ideology of the youth of Athens which resulted in development of a rebellion in Athens (Kreeft, 2005, p.83). Socrates accepted the flaws in his stand and tried to safeguard his entire discourse on living in pretense without actually knowing the truth. Thus, the views presented by Socrates in the Apology are more of an explanation for his flawed theories and actions rather than seeking a forgiveness for not accepting the religious and judicial solemnity of the state of Athens.
Analyzing the two different rationale behind the contradictory response
Socrates assumed that the true instinct of nationalist approach for an individual was driven by the geographically bound laws of the state in which he lived. So, he implemented his norms of nationality on himself as being a citizen of Athens and assumed that his loyalty was to the state of Athens and not to the prejudiced political powers who governed it. In Crito, he explained that if the state tends to eliminate injustice within its boundaries, the state should first convince its people to forbid injustice in their thoughts towards the judicial sanctity of their state (Brickhouse and Smith, 2004, p. 243). Thus, he refused Crito’s offer to bribe the guards who were at duty outside his prison said that this act would pose a threat of injustice to the judicial sanctity of Athens.
Further, he accepted his fate to the state of Athens by honoring his commitment to the Athenian justice. So, this clears the mindset with which Socrates denied Crito’s offer for escaping the prison. Let us analyze the rationale behind his response in the Apology to have a comparative understanding how the response led to the contradiction in Socrates’ responses.
In Apology, Socrates defended the charges pressed against him for corrupting the youth of Athens and denying the state acknowledge gods in their role to contribute towards the welfare of people. He chastised the prejudicial political system of Athens that was biased towards the positive impact of people’s nationality being more directed towards the state rather than being obedient towards the political rule in the state (Szabados and Soifer, 2004, p.315). This loss of political power was not acceptable to the rulers and they brought Socrates under the religious breach to have his philosophy suppressed in terms of profanity and defamation of religious beliefs of the state.
Therefore, Socrates was uprightly rejecting the acceptance of the jury’s decision as a part of his earlier established philosophy in Crito that the city has to deny any act of injustice to ensure that there was full faith in Athenian justice. As per Socrates’ philosophy regarding the sanctity of Athenian justice, he also believed that the state vested in him the rights to stand against the injustice installed in the judicial system of the state by accusing him of a crime which was not committed by him (Szabados and Soifer, 2004, p.317).
Socrates’ hypocrisy or an act of allegiance to his philosophy towards injustice in the state
After taking a meticulous note of Socrates’ statement in ‘Crito’ and his philosophical rationale behind the statement, it is relatively easier to understand that the widely believed statement of hypocrisy in ‘Apology’ was actually not actually an act of allegiance to his firm laid philosophy behind the nationalism for an individual. His response towards acceptance of his commitment to the judicial system of Athens was evident as his true philosophy in ‘Crito’ and his defiance towards the injustice installed in the judicial system of Athens by its corrupt political system was his act of refuting the flawed system in the ‘Apology’.
Conclusion
The essay has given sufficient explanation for the observed hypocrisy due to difference encountered in Socrates’ response towards the jury’s decision in ‘Apology’ and to that in ‘Crito’. There is proper justification posed behind his reaction towards the execution and imprisonment posed as a form of injustice developed in the judicial system of Athens and his philosophy behind accepting the true form of nationalism in which an individual was supposed to comply with justice to wipe out the injustice from the state. However, when his nuance of establishing a nationalism driven judicial system (which was consistent in upholding the sanctity of state) was accused by the political system of the state, he expressed his denial the corrupted and prejudiced accusation put on him by the political system of the state.
Bibliography
Brickhouse, C.T. and Smith, D.N., 2004.Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates. New York: Routledge Publication.
Kreeft, P., 2005. Socrates Meets Sartre: The Father of Philosophy Meets the Founder of existentialism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Szabados,B. and Soifer, E., 2004. Hypocrisy: Ethical Investigations. Canada: Broadview Press.
