The present paper focuses on the complex relation between ethics andpolitics in Plato’s Crito. While the issue is presented from a contemporaryperspective, the problems of civil disobedience and politicalobligation are the present study’s primarily concern. The issue of civildisobedience concerns moral reasons for breaking the law, whereasthe concept of political obligation refers to a moral duty to obey the law.When disagreeing with the view that Socrates in the dialogue arguesfor an unconditional obedience to the state, the article builds on theApology. Subsequently, the similarities between the position of Socratesand that of H.D. Thoreau are investigated. Finally, the paper discussesthe concept of political obligation so as to show that the argumentin the Crito anticipates several modern theories. The modern controversiesthat this article covers are shown to play an important role in Plato’sdialogue, as they are the basis of Socrates’ political obligation.
PL
The present paper focuses on the complex relation between ethics and politics in Plato’s Crito. While the issue is presented from a contemporary perspective, the problems of civil disobedience and political obligation are the present study’s primarily concern. The issue of civil disobedience concerns moral reasons for breaking the law, whereas the concept of political obligation refers to a moral duty to obey the law. When disagreeing with the view that Socrates in the dialogue argues for an unconditional obedience to the state, the article builds on the Apology. Subsequently, the similarities between the position of Socrates and that of H.D. Thoreau are investigated. Finally, the paper discusses the concept of political obligation so as to show that the argument in the Crito anticipates several modern theories. The modern controversies that this article covers are shown to play an important role in Plato’s dialogue, as they are the basis of Socrates’ political obligation.
Speeches and persuasion dominate Plato’s Crito. This paper, paying particular attention to the final passage in the dialogue, shows that the focus on speeches, persuasion and allusions to many other elements of rhetoric is an integral part of Plato’s severe criticism of democracy, one of the main points of the Crito. Speeches allow members of a democracy – represented in our dialogue by Crito – firstly to break the law for self-interested reasons while considering themselves still to be law-abiding citizens, and secondly to feel that they are in a tolerant society preferring logos/persuasive speech above bia/compulsion. Socrates counters Crito’s speeches with speeches of his own, not only to defeat him at his own game, but also to make him aware how dangerous the game is. Real knowledge is preferable to speeches, but a democracy without speeches and rhetoric is doomed.
The paper discusses the possibility of persuading the Laws, which would, according to the Crito dialogue, allow citizens to disobey a law or its regulation without such actions being unrightful. First, I will summarize the authoritarian position of the Laws and will introduce the existing interpretations of the persuasion of the Laws. Then I will show why I don’t believe that any of these interpretations has proven satisfactory. Subsequently, I will present my own interpretation of the persuasion of the Laws, which references Socrates’ principle of following reason and the strongest argument available. I believe that persuading the Laws corresponds to a dialectical exchange of arguments with the Laws themselves or, in particular, successfully opposing their arguments, which Socrates demonstrates in, for example, the Crito dialogue. My interpretation thus solves the problems presented above (the relation to Socrates’ own actions, an apparent inconsistency with The Defense of Socrates dialogue), and at the same time reasonably explains why Socrates accepts the unjustness of the death penalty and remains in the prison.
CS
Tématem příspěvku je výklad možnosti přesvědčit zákony, která podle dialogu Kritón občanům umožňuje neuposlechnout zákon či jeho nařízení, aniž by takové jednání bylo nespravedlivé. Nejprve shrnu autoritářskou pozici zákonů a představím dosavadní interpretace přesvědčování zákonů. Poté předvedu, proč se domnívám, že žádná z dosavadních interpretací není uspokojující. Následně představím svoji vlastní interpretaci přesvědčování zákonů, která navazuje na Sókratovo pravidlo následování rozumu a nejsilnějšího dostupného argumentu. Domnívám se, že přemlouvání zákonů odpovídá dialektické výměně argumentů se samotnými zákony, resp. úspěšnému odporování jejich argumentům, které Sókratés předvádí např. v dialogu Kritón. Moje interpretace tak řeší výše uvedené problémy (vztah k Sókratovu vlastnímu jednání, zdánlivá nekonzistence s dialogem Obrana Sókrata) a zároveň smysluplně vysvětluje, proč Sókratés přijímá nespravedlivý trest smrti a zůstává ve vězení.
DE
Thema des vorliegenden Beitrags ist eine Auslegung zur Möglichkeit, Gesetze zu überzeugen, die es Bürgern gemäß dem Dialog Kriton ermöglicht, Gesetze und deren Anordnungen nicht zu befolgen, ohne dass dieses Verhalten ungerecht wäre. Dabei fasse ich zunächst die autoritäre Position der Gesetze zusammen und stelle die bisherigen Auslegungen zur Überzeugung von Gesetzen vor. Anschließend zeige ich auf, warum ich der Ansicht bin, dass keine der bisherigen Auslegungen zufriedenstellend ist. Des Weiteren stelle ich meine eigene Sichtweise der Überzeugung von Gesetzen vor, die an Sokrates‘ Regel vom Befolgen der Vernunft und des stärksten verfügbaren Arguments anknüpft. Meines Erachtens entspricht das Überreden von Gesetzen dem dialektischen Argumentationsaustausch mit den Gesetzen selbst bzw. der erfolgreichen Verteidigung gegen die Argumente der Gesetze, die Sokrates beispielsweise im Dialog Kriton vorstellt. Meine Interpretation löst somit die oben aufgeführten Probleme (den Bezug zu Sokrates‘ eigenem Verhalten, die scheinbare Inkonsistenz zum Dialog Des Sokrates Verteidigung) und erklärt gleichfalls sinnvoll, warum Sokrates das ungerechte Todesurteil annimmt und im Gefängnis bleibt.
This paper is about: a) the model of friendship bonds Plato presents to us through his character, Socrates; b) the kinds of friendship bonds Plato tried to create with his students and wanted his students to create when they returned home; c) the friendship bonds lovers of Plato’s dialogues have created with each other for 2400 years; and d) the bonds that those who want to imitate Socrates should create with all of their fellowcitizens. Such bonds are critical for sustaining non-authoritarian societies. Since 2016, Westerners have become more aware of the need of intellectuals to develop these bonds.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.