Thoughts on Crito

I began my reflections on Plato’s “shorter ethical works,” as they are called by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with the Apology. Now, I move onto Crito, another short work that isn’t too difficult to comprehend. That does not mean it isn’t in any way perplexing, especially when juxtaposed with other works like the Apology, although I don’t think it too difficult to reconcile the differences. Crito opens with Socrates merrily awaiting his execution for the past month in prison. This was most unusual – typically people were executed the day after their sentencing. Socrates was given a reprieve due to felicitous circumstances – an Athenian ship needed to go on a sacred mission and apparently it was unlawful to execute people while this occurred. Socrates debates with his friend Crito whether or not his execution will occur the next day or the day after that. Socrates says he is sure it will happen the day after next since this was revealed to him in a dream of a “gloriously beautiful woman dressed in white” who told him “to the pleasant land of Phthia on the third day will you come.” This is an allusion to Homer’s Iliad, and it means that Socrates believes when he dies, he will be coming home. At any rate, it doesn’t matter which day – Socrates accepts the will of the gods (44a). I find this to be a beautiful sentiment is in accord with what Socrates says at then end of both the Apology and Phaedo. He does not want to die, but he fervently believes that when the time comes, it will be a great blessing. The only other place I have seen such steadfast hope in the ancient world is in St. Paul’s letters.

Crito is flabbergasted that he is more sleepless and depressed about Socrates’ impending doom than the man himself (43b). He has arranged it through bribery and subterfuge that Socrates can escape his prison and flee the state to somewhere where he can go on living. Socrates, however, refuses to escape and this is the main issue of the dialogue. Crito is doubly distraught that he will both lose a valued friend and that people will not believe that Socrates refused to escape and will blame Crito for not working hard enough to save him. As he says, “what could be more contemptible than to get a name for thinking more of money than of your friends” (44c)? Socrates consoles him by saying that he should care only for his character and not his reputation. People who really know what is going on will understand and he should pay no mind to the gossipers and malcontents who don’t believe him. Wise advice.

Crito lays out his argument for why Socrates should escape. Crito is risking his life to save Socrates and therefore Socrates should go along with it. He also says it is wrong for a great man like Socrates to throw his life away so easily. It’s cowardly and unfair to Socrates’ children who need their father (45c). This last argument sounds fair, except we must bear in mind that Socrates is now around 70 years old – his children should be able to take care of themselves at this point. I do, however, agree with Crito that it does seem like a terrible waste for Socrates to accept his death so cavalierly, it seems almost selfish. Speaking for myself, if I was unjustly imprisoned, I would have no problem with escaping. Perhaps Socrates is more consistent and principled than I am. This is, in fact, his rebuttal – he appreciates all Crito has done, but if a man abandon’s his principles when the going gets hard, he never had them in the first place. That’s why principles are in place, for the hard times. Socrates says he does take in his friends’ advice, but it must be filtered through his own reflections and if it doesn’t seem reasonable, he can’t be swayed. I respect such steadfast devotion to principles, but my own decision would have been different. What would yours be?

He also adds to his remarks about paying no mind to those who don’t understand the situation. He says that we shouldn’t respect all opinions, only good ones. The only way to tell a good from a bad opinion, according to Socrates, depends on expertise. The truth isn’t democratic, it is one. Experts are much more likely to have a correct opinion than the peanut gallery. The opinion of one expert is worth more than thousands of opinions from unqualified people. Whatever you do, you should make sure your actions are in line with the supreme authority – Truth. I agree with all this and actually see it mirrored in current events. One of the big problems with the massive amount of freely available information is that idiots have as much access to it as intelligent people. With the current coronavirus pandemic going on, many people cease to trust epidemiologists and doctors and listen to certain news people they like. That is folly. The problem is that the issue is more complicated, since some of these epidemiologists have bizarre commitments to unscientific dogma that make their other opinions suspect (like saying racism is a worse disease than COVID-19). We also can’t be sure of motives, etc. It is very hard to determine the truth, but we should leave that judgment for the most part to experts until they lose our trust for valid reasons. I believe this is also shown in the recent Expanse novels where the main character James Holden is known for giving the entire solar system information that most people would reserve for experts. The books show the devastating impact this has-- it causes two wars, the decimation of Earth, the release of deadly alien technology, etc. Some things are not meant to be handled democratically.

Socrates continues his rebuttal by telling Crito that “the really important is not to live, but to live well” (48b). When confronted with a difficult decision we should only have one question in our minds – what is the right thing to do? It may be the same as what we want to do, but if they conflict, we should always go with the right thing, not the pleasurable thing. Echoing the NT injunction to love your enemies, Socrates also teaches us that “One must not even do wrong when one is wronged” (49b). This obviously sounds good and right but is extremely difficult in practice. At this point, you may be asking yourself what this has to do with Socrates current situation. He thinks he would be injuring the city if he escaped. Similar to the argument in Statesman he says that if he fails to follow the decree of the court then that would mean the laws shouldn’t apply to anyone. It would unleash a snowball effect. What makes Socrates so special as to defy the law and the sentence of the court? He does think that their judgment was unjust since he is innocent, but he feels that he must persuade them to change their minds and not just escape against their wishes. I sort of understand this sentiment, but I still think Socrates made the wrong choice here, or at the very least I wouldn’t have made that one. As soon as a government unjustly sentences me to death, they have lost their right to govern me. It’s also strange that Socrates won’t defy this order, but he said in the Apology that if they were to let him go if he were to promise to stop practicing philosophy he would never do so – he’d rather die a hundred deaths than ever stop (30c). He does say that honoring God is more important than honoring man. But couldn’t you say that Socrates life is in God’s hands and not obviously corrupt Athenians? I do believe this is a hole in his logic.

He also has a great deal of affection for his city and feels like he owes them his life. He takes an extremely conservative turn here, which is both good and bad, I think. He says that he is only alive due to the marriage laws of the state and he greatly benefitted from the education laws of the city and wouldn’t be the man he is today if not for them. I agree with this sort of reverence. He loses me in what he says next. He likens talking back to the state and not obeying their laws to a child backtalking and disobeying their parents – this is not dignified or just behavior. “Are you so wise as to have forgotten that compared with your mother and father and all the rest of your ancestors, your country is something far more precious, more venerable, more sacred, and held in greater honor both among gods and among all reasonable men” (51b). For that reason, he says that a good citizen obeys ALL the laws, they can’t pick and choose. If they do, then they can GTFO. While I agree somewhat with having fond feelings for one’s homeland, I cannot agree with this stupidity and am shocked Socrates actually held to it. I guess none of us are perfect. Socrates was quite unorthodox in many of his beliefs and teachings and that’s why he is getting persecuted. It boggles my mind that he would demand such blind idiotic devotion to despotism.

Socrates explains his comments further – the only reason he ever left Athens was to fight for her in the military, that’s how much he loves his city. The court actually gave him the choice to be banished or to die and he chose death since he’d rather die in his city rather than go somewhere else (52c). Escaping would be a bad idea since his family would be banished from Athens and disgraced. They would lose all their property and it is likely that they and he would find it difficult to be taken in somewhere else. He is old and near death anyways and wants his family to stay in Athens and be taken care of by his friends. This more pragmatic reason is the only one I agree with so far. He goes the other direction with his closing comments. He says, “Do not think more of your children or of your life or of anything else than you think of what is right” (54b). He also says that while he was wronged by the men of Athens, he wasn’t hurt by the city or the laws. He chooses to forgive the men and be true to what the city really stands for. He truly believes that he is following the path God has laid out for him.

In the end, I must disagree with Socrates choice. I like the fact that he has reverence for his homeland and shows gratitude for the laws Athens made that gave wondrous shape to his life. I also love the fact that he forgives his abusers. The only reason I would say he shouldn’t escape is for the sake of his family, so they don’t get banished or lose property rights. I do, however, think that he should have voluntarily chosen exile. He sounds like a man defeated and tired, ready to die. He should’ve been strong and carried on elsewhere. I also see gigantic red flags pop up in front of me when people try to convince me they are doing God’s will. They might be, but almost every time that happens, they usually aren’t, and in fact are doing something extremely stupid and dangerous. So much of his decision hinges on this visceral love of the land he was born in. I must admit that, even though I served in the military, I still have never felt such enduring affection for a homeland, be that a city, a state, or a country, or even a planet. I’m an adventurer at heart and love to go where the wind blows and explore new things and meet new people – I don’t like being in one place for too long.

I also don’t feel like I owe a particular scrap of space any allegiance, especially not when they are screwing me over. I’ve never had school pride in either high school or college, city pride, national pride, and not even pride in my military branch (very strange for most marines), pride in the places I’ve worked, pride in my ethnic origin, pride in my gender, pride in anything really. I’ve just never been that gung-ho about things like that. To me, what makes the man is his accomplishments and even those don’t go with us. I just hope to see as much of the Earth and its wonders before I die, and maybe even other planets if we get to that level of technology. I would gladly leave the US and live in another country, if I was able to. Socrates logic just doesn’t make any sense to me. I can see something wonderful in that sort of attachment, but it is so foreign to me I can’t agree with it. In the end, I think Crito is right – he is being cowardly and nonchalantly throwing away his life. He deserved better and so did those around him. I think he had a serious lapse in judgment. What do you think?