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
court were to acquit him only on the condition that he give up philosophizing, he would still refuse it. He said that he knew nothing, and in the meantime, he had no idea of what would happen after death and therefore, he had no fear of death. His stance is clear: death and justice are not important compared to his duty to Apollo and the unknown things after death. From this perspective, Socrates chooses not to accept the court if he couldn’t philosophize anymore. However, in the Crito, Socrates argues that: “…disobeying the law is disobeying my parents; laws are the authors of my education; I have an agreement with the laws that I will duly obey their commands; and I neither obey them nor convinces their commands are unjust” (WP X.1). Here, Socrates clearly points out the violations of not obeying the laws and indicates that the citizens must follow the order. The contradiction here is a little bit confusing, but if a problem cannot be challenged, it will not be philosophy. From my perspective of view, I think the two previous statements made by Socrates can be reconciled.
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
laws. Admittedly, some people may argue that the two statements are against each other. They may say that on one hand, Socrates states everyone must obey the rules, but on the other hand, he chooses to philosophize even though it is against the laws. If Socrates maintains that everyone must obey the laws, and if he doesn’t obey the laws himself, then his arguments are certainly contradictable. However, Socrates never needs to make a certain statement on things, because philosophical problems are always in doubt. If the problem is arguably for people, then it has value. Based on all the arguments mentioned above, I maintain that the two views can be reconciled. Socrates told all citizens to follow the laws, and made one statement of the importance of the laws in the Crito; he told himself not to give up philosophizing even though the court would acquit him if he did so. Socrates didn’t challenge the laws since he didn’t ask for life and philosophy at the same time. Therefore, I think Socrates’s two views can be reconciled.