Crito

Summary: Crito tries to convince Socrates to escape his prison and the sentencing. He argues that Socrates should consider the fate of his children as well as the shame that would fall on his friends for not helping him escape. Crito argues that Socrates friends will suffer reputationally if they do not help him, that its bad reputation that got him in the situation to begin with. As in Apology, living justly is more important than living longer, which is how Socrates refutes caring for his reputation.

Just as one should honor one's parents one should honour their state/city for caring for them (at least in the context of a state like Athens). Either convict them of changing their decision or hede its command. Socrates lived in Athens throughout his entire life and enjoyed its benefits, at any time he could have left if he did not agree with the "social contract" that comes with being an Athenian citizen. What would it say about him if he broke the law now that it doesnt benefit him.

Observations: Crete and Sparta are considered well governed by Socrates.

Greek motto of "Helping your friends and harming your enemies", refuted, you should never harm anyone, not in return. But Socrates was a soldier, what is his stance if your city goes to war, should you obey and participate?

One argument that Socrates makes against escaping is that he would gain an ill reputation for flouting the laws, is this consistent with his previous stance on reputation? Or is it within the context of prioritizing his life over living justly?

In accepting his execution, Socrates makes a mocking of Toby Fox's legendary ethos: «Don't kill and don't be killed».

Apology

Summary: Socrates defends himself against acussations of corrupting the youth and impiety. He chooses to make a logical appeal to the jury and reject emotional appeals such as bringing his children to cry for him on his behalf. Socrates makes out that he has become unpopular for questioning people and a following of young people have started to follow his example. The 3 accusers represents the people of different vocations he has questioned: Anytus (craftsmen and politicians), Meletus (poet), Lycon (orators) The notes mention historical circumstances could also be a reason for Socrates popularity. Ultimately Socrates does not succeed in defending himself, the jury judges him guilty and then sentences him to death.

Observations: Socrates claims that a divine voice is guiding him, telling him what actions to avoid, as well as that he has been given a divine sign to pursue philosophy and the truth. avoid politics He does not claim divine authority, only that as his motivation. It is however remarked that he was attached to the city by the god, indirectly noting that going against him goes against the god.

Social consequences of philosophy and pursuing truth: The risks of pursuing truth and living as a philosopher is clearly emphasised in this dialogue. Republic also refences the social risk a person takes from questioning everything.

Critic of rhetoric: Apparent through the defense that Socrates disdains emotional appeals and would rather take his execution than compromise logical reasoning in favor of rhetoric. This is further developed in Gorgias.

The idea of a successor to Socrates is brought up, also in Phaedo.

Hints of epistemology and art: Poets do not compose poems with knowledge, but with inborn talent and inspiration. Bystanders could explain their works better than the poets themselves.

Speculation on death: Socrates has no adequate knowledge of the afterlife, therefore he does not fear it. He however values living the good life over living a long life. This execution might be a good thing as the divine sign didnt oppose it, death might be a blessing This is starkly different from Phaedo, Gorgias and Republic where death is speculated on. Can this be how the actual Socrates viewed the afterlife while the other works reflect Plato's ideas?

Summary: Socrates has been accused of impiety and in order to prepare for the court he ask the prophet Euthyphro about the nature of piety. Euthyphro is sure of his knowledge of the gods and what piety is, he is even willing to persecute his own father because he believes it is what the gods demand. However, as Euthyphro answers what piety is and Socrates questions him, the answer for what piety is keeps on changing. Eventually the Socrates points out the dilemma of piety and it's circular definition: Is it pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious? At the end Euthyphro leaves as Socrates vows to continue asking until the truth is reached.

Quick Observations: We can be sure that we have knowledge of something, yet at the same time we can sometimes not express this knowledge. If we keep changing our answers to satisfy the question, then what does our confidence mean?

I notice a similar concept from Republic, a career is good when it improves the condition of its subject. A good doctor improves the health of the patient, a good king improves the prosperity of his people.

A thing is lifted because it is being lifted, it isn't lifted because it's property is being lifted. I think this concept popped up in Republic as well, an important distinction for Plato.

I imagine that in monoteistic religions the dilemma is avoided by making divinity and good inseparable, that God and good are the same thing/being.

My Own Take: I think we can recognize ourselves in Euthyphro. If he would admit to ignorance on piety, it would jeopardize his place in society as a prophet and his sense of self. Would he still have a reason to prosecute his father? Would he be ridiculed for then abandoning his prosecution? Only a select few scholars have any real expertise in an area and even then they are just as ignorant as you outside of it. But due to factors of ego, social pressure, lack of time and interest, we cannot admit ignorance on what we don't know.